Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-01-26 SIGCOA\1999-01-26-SIG N.doc COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOP, THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 26, 1999 MEMBER PRESENT: Messrs. S. Kay, P. Kruse and A. Galloway. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. S. Kay, Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. This meeting of the Committee of Adjustment as a Standing Committee of City Council was called to consider applications regarding variances to Chapter 680 of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code. The Committee will not make a decision on this application but rather will make a recommendation which will be forwarded to Committee of the Whole and Council for final decision. The Chairman explained that this Committee's decision with respect to sign variances is a recommendation to City Council and not a final decision. He advised that the Committee's recommendations will be forwarded to City Council on Monday February 1, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. and they may appear at the meeting if they wish. APPLICATIONS Submission No. S 1/99 - Eiwo Canadian Management Co. Ltd., 385 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lot 9, Sub. Lot 3, German Company Tract and Part Lot X, Registered Plan 414, 385 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario. Appearances: In Support: Mr. J. Hennebry National Sign and Awning Group 2880 King Street East Suite D Kitchener, Ontario Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing pylon sign having a height of 8.84 m (29.01 ft.) rather than the permitted 7.5 m (24.61 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing pylon sign having a height of 8.84 m rather than the permitted 7.5 m. It is noted that the sign drawings submitted with the application reflect a sign height of 9 m, and the application should be amended accordingly. Submission No. S 1/99,(Cont'd) The application comes before the Committee as a result of a sign permit application to refurbish an existing pylon sign at Frederick Street Mall. Upon review of the sign drawings, it was determined that the existing sign exceeds the Sign By-law maximum height of 7.5 m. A sign permit was issued to erect a pole sign at the plaza on October 3, 1979. Although the sign drawings submitted and approved at that time cannot be located by staff, the maximum height allowed by the Sign By-law at that time was 25 feet (7.62 m). It would appear that the existing sign was erected in 1979 or modified at a later date in contravention of the height restriction. The intent of the maximum sign height regulation is to limit signs to a reasonable size allowing for business identification and promotion, while not creating an adverse visual impact. Although the subject sign is 1.5 m greater than the permitted height, it is set back over 23 m from the property line on the 4.06 ha (10.3 acre) parcel of land, and thus is not out of character for the property. The plaza property is bounded by a combination of institutional, park, commercial and residential lands; the sign is most visible across Edna Street, which contains commercial uses. The existing sign meets all other requirements of the current Sign By-law and the applicant wishes to retain the existing height in order to maintain visibility from the Conestoga Expressway. Staff have confirmed that Ministry of Transportation staff do not have any concerns with the sign. The sign has existed without concern or complaint for a number of years. Based on the above comments, it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance is minor in nature, is in keeping with the appropriate development of the property, and meets the general intent of the Sign By-law. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of the variance to legalize the existing sign height as shown on the drawings submitted with the application. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that any sign exceeding 7.5 metres in height shall be designated by a professional engineer. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Ministry of Transportation in which they advised that the Ministry does not anticipate a problem with the highway system as a result of this application, provided said sign is not visible from Highway #7, as anticipated. Ministry permits are not required. At the request of Mr. Hennebry, the Committee agreed to consider an amendment to the application, as identified by staff. A brief discussion took place concerning the Ministry of Transportation comments. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Eiwo Canadian Management Co. Ltd. requesting legalization of an existing pylon sign having a height of 9 m (29.53 ft.) rather than the permitted 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) on Part Lot 9, Sub. Lot 3, German Company Tract and Part Lot X, Registered Plan 414, 385 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: Submission No. S 1/99,(Cont'd) 1. That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the sign as shown on the drawings submitted with the application. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance approved in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code Chapter 680 (Signs) is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 2. Submission No. S 2/99 - Beaconridge Development Inc., 300-80 Tiverton Court, Markham, Ontario Re: Lot 1, Registered Plan 1745, 130-170 Gateway park Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. Appearances: In Support: Mr. B. Toderian 171 Victoria Street North Kitchener, Ontario Mr. R. Eadie Beaconridge Development Inc. 300-80 Tiverton Court Markham, Ontario Contra: Mr. R. McColl 22 Edgehill Drive Kitchener, Ontario Mr. P. Vanderwerff 24 Marquette Drive Kitchener, Ontario Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to erect a pylon sign having a height of 10.1 m (33.14 ft.) rather than the permitted 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) and an area of 42 m2 (452.1 sq. ft.) rather than the permitted 20 m2 (215.29 sq. ft.). The Committee considered the comments of the Department of business and Planning Services in which they advised the applicant is requesting permission to erect a pylon sign having a height of 10.1 m (33.1 ft.) rather than the permitted 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), an area of 42 m~ (452.1 sq. ft.) rather than the permitted 20 m~ (215.3 sq. ft.). The applicant has stated that the sign is unique in nature due to its direct association and orientation to Highway 8, and that the large size is required in order to provide visibility. The sign would be located at the rear of the property, between two existing buildings. The intent of the regulations for maximum sign height and area is to limit signs to a reasonable size allowing for business identification and promotion, while not creating an adverse visual impact. While the variances requested seem substantial, the proposed sign height and area are not out of scale relative to the 4 ha (10.6 ac.) property. The Submission No. S 2/99,(Cont'd) sign would not appear to have an adverse visual impact when viewed from Gateway Park Drive, as it will be located at the rear lot line, and will be one-sided, with content facing Highway 8 only. As there is a surplus of parking on the site, staff have no concerns with the removal of one or two parking spaces, as estimated by Traffic Division staff, to accommodate the sign. Traffic Division staff note that depending on the orientation of the sign, the drive aisle may be compromised by the pole of the sign. The applicant should ensure that the location of the sign pole does not block traffic. Ministry of Transportation staff have advised a sign permit is required for the sign, and that it must be located 3 m (10 ft.) from the lot line, which exceeds the City's requirement of a .4 m (16 inch) setback. A sign permit from the City of Kitchener is also required. Based on the above comments, it is the opinion of staff that the requested variances for sign height and sign area are minor in nature and meet the general intent of the Sign By-law. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of the variances as shown on the drawings submitted with the application. The Committee noted the comments of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Ministry of Transportation in which they advised they have some concerns with the way this application has been presented, as the proposed sign is not located on the individual lot where the business is taking place. The Ministry will not issue permits for a sign at this location. However, if the sign was relocated onto the site where the business is taking place, the Ministry would have no objection to the height of size changes indicated in this application and Ministry permits will be available. The Ministry will not permit the removal of any trees from the Highway #8 right- of-way to accommodate said sign. 2. The minimum commercial setback is 13.7 metres behind property line. Building & Land Use and Sign permits are required from the Ministry prior to the commencement of any grading or construction. The Committee considered the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that any sign exceeding 7.5 m in height shall be designed by a professional engineer. Mr. Toderian advised the Committee that he had reviewed the written comments and was in agreement with them. He then reviewed the required in the application. Noting the comments of the Director of Building, Mr. Toderian advised that the sign will be designed by a professional engineer and the drawings will be stamped. Mr. Toderian then distributed copies of a section of the site plan showing the orientation of the sign. He stated that the sign is unique in nature. He advised that originally, when Sears negotiated for the site, the sign was the most important thing. Visibility from the highway was important. The Ministry of Transportation has been adamant that no trees will be removed. A great deal of thought has gone into the sign and it will be oriented only towards Highway 8. He advised that the Ministry comments state that they have no objection to the sign. Submission No. S 2/99,(Cont'd) Mr. P. Kruse referred to a comment in the Ministry's letter that the sign is not located on the lot where the business is taking place. Mr. Toderian referred to the site plan submitted with the application. He noted that the sign will be located between two buildings. He advised that 130-170 Gateway Park Drive is 1 lot and the sign will be located on the same lot where the use is taking place. He noted that he would have to clarify this with the Ministry. Mr. A Galloway commented on the Ministry's requirement for a 13.7 m setback. Mr. Toderian advised that the Ministry had advised him that their setback requirement was 3 m, and the sign had been located accordingly, on the site plan. He advised that he would contact the Ministry and clarify this requirement. Mr. Kruse advised of his concern that, if the Committee approves this application, they would be seen as trying to usurp the Ministry's authority. Mr. Toderian pointed out that the location of the sign is not in question in this application. The Committee's decision concerning the enlargement of the sign does not affect the location. Ms. J. Given pointed out that there is a relationship between the size of the sign and the location; as a different location may make the size inappropriate. Mr. Kruse then noted that the Committee's decision will be based on location. If the Committee approves the application and the Ministry requires that the sign be moved, the applicant may not have the City's approval. Mr. Toderian responded that, if the decision is conditional on the Ministry's approval of the location, he could clarify that for Council on Monday night. Mr. Kay questioned the City's required setback and Ms. Given advised that the Sign By- law requires a 0.4 m (16 inch) setback. Mr. Vanderwerff addressed the Committee on behalf of the Pinegrove Neighbourhood Association. He stated that it was his opinion that the variance is not minor. He noted that the sign drawing indicates that the lighting will be high output and questioned whether this will affect other properties. Mr. Vanderwerff then referred to the Famous Players sign variance, which was refused. He stated that the Committee should administer the Sign By-law fairly. Mr. Vanderwerff referred to the comments of Business & Planning Services. He was concerned that the sign will be seen from Highway 8. He raised concerns that Highway 8 will look like highways in the United States. Mr. R. McColl addressed the Committee noting the current request is for a sign 150% higher than the by-law permits and 210% larger in area. He felt that this was not a minor variance. He referred to an application for Famous Players, previously refused by this Committee and Council. Mr. McColl then advised that he was of the opinion that the proposed sign was in conflict with the development policy of the highway bypass. He noted that there is densely wooded buffer zone along the bypass. Mr. McColl then referred to the Business & Planning Services comments stating that there is a surplus of parking on the site. Mr. McColl was of the opinion that the existing parking is only 50% of what is actually required. Mr. McColl stated that if this sign is approved, it leaves it open for all of the big box stores in this area to apply for sign variances. Mr. Toderian advised of the uses in the four buildings on the site, noting that building A is not occupied yet because of signage. He noted that building A is completely screened from Highway 8. He also noted that the proposed sign would be a t least 300 ft. from the highway edge. Mr. P. Kruse then questioned staff concerning the Famous Players sign variance. Ms. Given replies that the impact was quite different and the Famous Players sign had a greater impact on the residential properties across King Street. She noted that this proposed sign is more than 100 m from King Street. She noted that the view would Submission No. S 2/99,(Cont'd) also be quite different, as the sign will not have copy facing King Street. Mr. Kruse then noted that he had been on the panel which had refused the request of Famous Players for the sign variance and it was his remembrance that the reason for the recommended refusal was the impact that the Famous Players sign would have on the residential properties across King Street. He felt that this application was different in that it had a greater distance from the residential properties across King Street and they would not be affected as they would have been with the Famous Players sign. Mr. McColl stated that Mr. Kruse was correct in his remembrance about the Famous Players sign. Mr. McColl then noted that there is a massive development of commercial property in this area and that the neighbourhood is concerned that a process exists where the Commercial and Residential properties can get along. It was the opinion of the residents in this area that the bylaws are that method. Mr. B. Toderian addressed the Committee advising that this sign is specific to the nature of the site and that he did not see a proliferation of signs being proposed for this property. He noted that this one building would contain the anchor tenant for the site and that it does not feed off the other uses in the area. He stated that it is important for the anchor property to have visibility and that the other businesses in the area gain customers from the anchor business. Mr. P. Kruse put forward a motion to recommend to Council that this application be approved. He stated that the Committee is trying to work the best possible path it can and that this application is different from the Famous Players Application in that the lighting impact on the residential properties is different. He stated that he had listed to all submissions made today and taking all matters into consideration he felt that the application should be approved. Mr. A. Galloway stated that he felt that this application was different than the previous one and that the impact of this sign on the residential property would be different than the Famous Players sign. Mr. S. Kay advised that he was in support of this motion. He advised the applicants that he would not be in support of a proliferation of signs in this area. He stated that he felt that this situation was unique and that the sign would be facing the highway only. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Beaconridge Development Inc. requesting permission to erect a pylon sign having a height of 10.1 m (33.14 ft.) rather than the permitted 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) and an area of 42 m2 (452.1 sq. ft.) rather than the permitted 20 m2 (215.29 sq. ft.) on Lot 1, Registered Plan 1745, 130-170 Gateway Park Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the sign as shown in the drawing submitted with this application, in the location generally as shown on the site plan submitted with this application. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances approved in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code Chapter 680 (Signs) is being maintained on the subject property. Carried ADJOURNED On Motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 26th day of January 1999.