Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-08-17 SIGCOA\1999-08-17-SIGN COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 17, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. S. Kay and A. Galloway. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. S. Kay, Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. This meeting of the Committee of Adjustment as a Standing Committee of City Council was called to consider an application regarding variance to Chapter 680 (Signs) 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 the Committee of the Whole and Council for final decision. The Chair explained that this Committee's decision with respect to sign variances are recommendations to City Council and not a final decision. He advised that the Committee's recommendation will be forwarded to City Council on Monday, August 30, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. and the applicants may register with the City Clerk to appear at the meeting if desired. APPLICATIONS Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: S 8/99 Waterloo Regional Credit Union 1334 Weber St. East at Fergus Avenue Lot 31 & Part Lot 30 and Part of Solan Avenue, Registered Plan No. 687 Appearances: In Support: Mr. N.T. Bragg 68B St. George St. Brantford ON N3R 1V4 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to add a changeable readograph to an exiting sign having a ground clearance of 4.065 m (13.33 ft.), rather than the required 4.3 m (14.1 ft.) for signs located within 0.6 m (1.96 ft.) of an area intended for vehicular parking. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant requests permission to add a changeable readograph to an existing sign. The proposed addition will have a clearance from ground level of 4.07 metres (13.33 feet) rather than the required minimum of 4.3 metres (14.1 feet) for signs located within 0.6 metres (2 feet) of an area intended for vehicular traffic. The intent of the regulation is to allow sufficient clearance for vehicles to drive in close proximity to the sign. The requested sign box will be located up to the parking space but it will not extend over the parking space. The sign will encroach into the required clearance by 0.23 metres (0.75 feet). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 20 AUGUST 17, 1999 1. Submission No.: S 8/99 (Cont'd) Staff notes the proposed addition has a clearance from the ground of 4.04 feet whereas 4.3 metres are required by the by-law. The sign will encroach 0.24 metres in to the 4.3 metre requirement. This is a small proportion of the overall requirement and is considered minor in nature. In addition, the sign box will not actually extend over the parking space. The requested variance would not appear to impose a problem for vehicles using the adjacent parking space. The Traffic Department has no concerns with the requested variance. The sign complies with all other regulations of the Sign By-law. Based on the above comments, staff are of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature, meets the intent of the Sign By-law and is considered appropriate development for the commercial use of the property. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of the required variance as shown on the plan submitted by the applicant. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have no concerns; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections with respect to this application. Mr. S. Kay questioned if the sign was existing and Mr. N. Bragg responded that it was. Mr. Kay also questioned if there had been a previous minor variance application with respect to this sign. Mr. Bragg responded that in 1995 an application had been submitted for an electronic message centre but had been turned down. In place of this, he advised that it was decided to erect a pylon sign which was approved and conforms to the by-laws. Mr. S. Kay requested clarification as to the modification being proposed to the existing sign and Mr. Bragg responded that it is proposed to add a changeable readograph message board from which the Waterloo Regional Credit Union can advertise its rates and other information. He advised that the Credit Union does not want to place a mobile sign on the property for this purpose but rather are requesting permission to retrofit the existing sign. Mr. S. Kay requested Mr. Bragg to explain the difference between this application and the previous application as it was his understanding that the previous application involved issues with respect to traffic safety as the proposed sign had been too close to the intersection. Mr. Bragg explained that the previous application involved an electronic message centre which automatically and continually changes information displayed, whereas this application proposes a changeable readograph that displays fixed information which can only be changed manually. He stated that the former proposal for the electronic message centre also encroached into the daylight triangle; and, because of this and other traffic concerns was not approved. He stated that the existing pylon sign was erected in its place, setback further from the intersection, and does comply with all regulations. The Chair requested staff to comment and, in particular, he questioned if there was any traffic safety concerns with respect to the fixed message board. Ms. J. Given responded that there COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 21 AUGUST 17, 1999 1. Submission No.: S 8/99 (Cont'd) were no traffic safety concerns other than clearance from the ground in relation to an abutting parking space. The Chair inquired if mobile signs are permitted and what rules and regulations govern such signs. Ms. Given responded that mobile signs are permitted and can, in fact, be placed closer to the road than the sign in question. The Chair inquired if a mobile sign would be permitted on the subject property and Ms. Given responded that she could not confirm this without further review of the regulations. Mr. N. Bragg pointed out that he believed mobile signs had previously been erected on this property; however, the owner does not wish to place a mobile sign as they are only allowed for up to 90 days per year and the owner wishes to have a permanent sign. The Chair stated that he had concerns with respect to traffic safety and the potential for vehicular accidents as he believed this type of signage draws the attention of the motorist away from the road. For these reasons, he stated that he was not in support of approving the application. Ms. S. Campbell stated that she preferred this type of sign rather than mobile signs and was prepared to move approval of the application. Mr. A. Galloway agreed with Ms. Campbell's comments and stated that as the time and temperature was already located lower on the sign than where the readograph was proposed to be located he was of the opinion that the sign would not pose any safety concerns. The Chair stated that he wished to be recorded as opposed to this application for the reasons previously stated relating to potential vehicular accidents resulting from motorists' attention being drawn away from the roadway. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Waterloo Regional Credit Union requesting permission to add a changeable readograph to an existing sign having a ground clearance of 4.065 m (13.33 ft.), rather than the required 4.3 m (14.1 ft.) for signs located within 0.6 m (1.96 ft.) of an area intended for vehicular parking, on Lot 31 and Part of Lot 30 and Part of Solan Avenue, Registered Plan 687, 1334 Weber Street East at Fergus Avenue, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply only in accordance with the plan as submitted with the application for Submission No. S 8/99. 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 The Chair pointed out to Mr. N. Bragg that the decision of the Committee is a recommendation to Council which will be considered at the Council meeting of August 30, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber and advised that he may register as a delegation to appear before Council at that time. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 22 AUGUST 17, 1999 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 17th day of August 1999. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment