Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 2001-05-14PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 14, 2001CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 3:35 p.m. under Councillor J. Ziegler, Vice-Chair, with the following members present: Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors B. Vrbanovic, G. Lorentz and M. Galloway. Councillor J. Smola entered the meeting after its commencement. Officials Present: Ms. C. Ladd, L. MacDonald, K. Bissell, J. Given, A. Menon and Messrs. R.W. Pritchard, G. Borovilos, D. Mansell, J. McBride, S. Vipond, B. Sloan and L.W. Neil. 1.BPS-01-064-MCINTYRE DRIVE, HURON BUSINESS PARK -PROPOSAL TO ACQUIRE SITE 132 FOR STECKLE FARM -STECKLE HERITAGE HOMESTEAD FOUNDATION - SOUTH WARD The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services report BPS-01-064 dated May 9, 2001 responding to a proposal from the J. Steckle Heritage Homestead that it secure Site 132 in the Huron Business Park for future requirements. It was noted in the report that the homestead wishes to obtain Site 132 for the following purposes: to improve parking and traffic safety, to eliminate isolation from existing green space and to protect the uniqueness of the Steckle Farm. However, staff have recommended that the City continue to market the site for sale for purposes of industrial use due to the current demand for such lands and the existing low inventory of industrial land. Revenue from sale of the 5.46 acres of which only 3.73 acres are developable is anticipated at $288,400. Ms. Linda Horn, Chair of the Steckle Foundation Board of Directors, appeared as a delegation relative to their request to secure Site 132 for use by the homestead. The homestead’s 6 minute video used for corporate solicitation was shown to the Committee and illustrates specific projects and programs available to and undertaken with community groups. It emphasizes a major goal of the foundation which is to establish partnerships with the community, particularly corporations. An information sheet about the homestead was distributed and describes awards received, financial supporters, other supporters and lists the board of directors of both the homestead and the foundation. As well, a letter dated May 10, 2001 from the Waterloo Federation of Agriculture was distributed indicating its support of the homestead acquiring Site 132 adjacent to the farm. Ms. Horn noted that the homestead also has a more detailed 20 minute video. A map illustrating Site 132 was shown on the overhead projection system illustrating the connection that the site provides in terms of community trail access to the Huron Natural Area and how at present the Steckle Homestead is isolated from the natural area. She commented that this was a once in a lifetime opportunity to protect and enhance the homestead and listed the quality programs currently provided by the homestead. Ms. Horn advised that if the City would not consider donating Site 132, that the homestead would be willing to purchase the property in future as long as the City was willing not to sell it at this time. A number of matters were raised by the Committee during discussions with Ms. Horn. These dealt with such issues as: a purchase time frame of a few years, ultimate use of the site aside from just parking, changing the access from Bleams Road to McIntyre Drive, severing a portion of Site 132, and access to McIntyre Drive that might encourage partnerships with adjacent businesses allowing for use of their parking lots in off business hours. Mr. G. Borovilos pointed out that the map shown by the delegation clearly illustrates the challenges in the Huron Business Park. He then reviewed the 3 options listed in the staff report and in response to Councillor B. Vrbanovic, noted that if the site was sold to the foundation, monies received could be used to offset development costs in other parts of the Huron Business Park. Councillor M. Galloway strongly favoured supporting the preservation initiative relating to the Steckle farm and commented that it was not possible to put a price tag on it. It was his preference to find a solution to accommodate their needs for the future. Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors G. Lorentz and B. Vrbanovic were also supportive of preservation and searching for a financial solution that would allow for acquisition of Site 132. Mayor C. Zehr pointed out that various questions need to be addressed relative to plans for the site and future plans of the Steckle Homestead Foundation. Councillor J. Ziegler indicated that he would look favourably at PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 14, 2001- 53 -CITY OF KITCHENER 1.BPS-01-064-MCINTYRE DRIVE, HURON BUSINESS PARK -PROPOSAL TO ACQUIRE SITE 132 FOR STECKLE FARM -STECKLE HERITAGE HOMESTEAD FOUNDATION - SOUTH WARD (CONT’D) selling the site for half the asking price and Councillor M. Galloway recommended the property be removed from the real estate market. On motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic - It was resolved: “That the Business and Planning Services Department be directed to take Site 132 fronting McIntyre Drive in the Huron Business Park off the real estate market in response to the request of the J. Steckle Heritage Homestead to secure the lands for future requirements of the Steckle Farm; and further, That staff be directed to assist the Homestead’s Board of Directors with the development of a master plan and related capital funding plan relative to Site 132 for consideration at the September 10, 2001 Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting.” 2.BPS-01-072-ADDENDUM TO BPS-01-057 -1285 OTTAWA STREET SOUTH -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 00/36/O/ZJ -GLEN & MARTHA MCNEIL - SOUTH WARD At the Committee’s April 30, 2001 meeting, consideration of Business and Planning Services report BPS-01-057 dealing with zone change application ZC 00/36/O/SV pertaining to lands known municipally as 1285 Ottawa Street South was deferred and referred to the meeting this date so as to allow staff to discuss concerns with the applicant and review alternative approaches to address these concerns within the draft proposed zoning by-law. As well, the Ward Councillor had indicated that he wished to undertake further consultation with area residents. The Committee was in receipt of report BPS-01-072 dated May 11, 2001 and an attached revised proposed by-law. This report was prepared as an addendum to BPS-01-057 and summarizes issues dealt with by staff since the Committee’s April 30, 2001 meeting. Issues considered were matters relating to: fencing, removal of home business use, increasing the number of on-site parking spaces and signs for the home business at 1285 Ottawa Street South. Ms. C. Ladd briefly summarized the report and Mr. S. Vipond advised that he had distributed a further revised proposed by-law this date which includes reference to a minimum of 3 off-street parking spaces being provided but advances a corrected clause with regard to the wood fence as compared to the clause in the by-law attached to report BPS-01-072. The corrected clause provides that a solid wood fence, having a minimum height of 1.8 metres and erected in accordance with the Fence By-law, shall enclose the rear yard. Mr. Glen McNeil appeared as a delegation to advise that all of their client’s pets are groomed in and kept in the garage. He stated that he did not understand concerns of neighbours in this regard and confirmed that only their own pets were in their backyard. No other delegations were registered respecting this matter. A general discussion took place dealing with concerns relative to the fence, illegal business operation, and the concept of dealing with this matter through a ‘temporary use by-law’ which would require readvertising of the zone change application. During the discussion, Councillor M. Galloway proposed and then withdrew a motion requesting the application be readvertised as a ‘temporary use by-law’ containing a stipulation the use be removed if the property were sold by the owners. Following further discussion, Councillor M. Galloway agreed to the compromise proposed by staff but requested it be recorded that it was his understanding a solid wood fence means one piece. 2.BPS-01-072-ADDENDUM TO BPS-01-057 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 14, 2001- 54 -CITY OF KITCHENER -1285 OTTAWA STREET SOUTH -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 00/36/O/ZJ -GLEN & MARTHA MCNEIL - SOUTH WARD (CONT’D) The recommendation in report BPS-01-057 was then considered as well as the revised proposed by-law dated April 4, 2001 distributed this date. On motion by Councillor M. Galloway - It was resolved: “That Zone Change Application ZC 00/36/O/SV (1285 Ottawa Street South - Glen and Martha McNeil) requesting a change in zoning from Residential Three Zone (R-3) to Residential Three Zone (R-3) with a Special Use Provision 292U and Special Regulation 350R, on lands legally described as Part Lot 47 German Company Tract being Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 58R-2592 save and except Part 6 on 58R-9907, municipally known as 1285 Ottawa Street South, be approved, in the form shown in the attached “Proposed By-law”, th dated April 4 2001, as revised to provide for 3 off-street parking spaces and a solid wood fence 1.8 metres in height, without conditions. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City and is in conformity with the City’s Municipal Plan.” 3.BPS-01-054-950 HIGHLAND ROAD & BANKSIDE DRIVE -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 00/37/H/BS -ACTIVA DEVELOPMENT CORP. / PEOPLECARE CENTRES INC. - WEST-VICTORIA PARK WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Business and Planning Services was in receipt of an application from Activa Development Corp. / PeopleCare Centres Inc., to change the zoning of lands located between Bankside Drive and Highland Road, east of Eastforest Trail in the Highland West Community. The site is immediately north of the Detweiler Greenway but south of existing townhouses fronting on Bankside Drive and is approximately 1.46 hectares (3.61 acres) in size. The proposed rezoning would add a special regulation provision to the current ‘Residential Six (R-6)’ zoning to permit a 162 bed, licensed residential care facility (nursing home) on the subject property. As well, a small portion of land at the Bankside Drive access to the property is currently zoned ‘Residential Eight (R-8)’ and this land is proposed to be similarly rezoned with the same special regulation provision. In this regard, the Committee considered report BPS-01-054 dated April 12, 2001 and a proposed by-law dated April 12, 2001 attached to the report. It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Ms. C. Ladd provided an explanation of the purpose of the application and advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report. Mr. Robert Dyck, Architect, appeared as a delegation on behalf of the proponents of the application to advise that they were in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Dyck commented on a conceptual drawing of the site plan and details of the proposed three storey building, setback distances from the rear property line of properties fronting Bankside Drive and proposed parking lot development that substantially exceeded the by-law requirements. Mr. C. Schmidt appeared as a delegation along with a number of residents of the area. He advised that he was not opposing the zone change application but that residents did object to the provision of only one access / egress for the site. He referred to existing parking problems on Bankside Drive due to operations of the Bankside Terrace Retirement Home and special events and expressed concern as to when the proposed parking arrangement between the proponents of this development and Bankside Terrace would be completed. 3.BPS-01-054-950 HIGHLAND ROAD & BANKSIDE DRIVE -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 00/37/H/BS PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 14, 2001- 55 -CITY OF KITCHENER -ACTIVA DEVELOPMENT CORP. / PEOPLECARE CENTRES INC. - WEST-VICTORIA PARK WARD (CONT’D) In response to Councillor J. Ziegler, Ms. C. Ladd advised that the development application was circulated to all technical agencies for comment and no concerns were raised by Fire Department officials. Further, Mr. B. Sloan advised that traffic staff considered the access to be adequate but he noted that movement within the site was somewhat restricted. No other delegations were registered respecting this matter. In response to Mayor C. Zehr, Ms. C. Ladd advised that approximately two years ago she believed a site plan was approved for the subject property that would have allowed for a multiple development utilizing the same access. It was pointed out to the delegations in attendance that the site plan approval process was still to be completed with respect to this project. On motion by Mayor C. Zehr - It was resolved: “That Zone Change Application ZC 00/37/H/BS (950 Highland Road West and Bankside Drive - Activa Development Corp. / PeopleCare Centres Inc.) requesting a change in zoning from Residential Six Zone (R-6) and Residential Eight Zone (R-8) to Residential Six Zone (R-6), with Special Regulation Provision 351R, on lands legally described Part Block 37, Plan 1727 being more particularly described as Part 15 on Reference Plan 58R-9995 and Part Lot 35, German Company Tract, being Part 14 on Reference Plan 58R-9995 and Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-6811, save and except Part 16 on Reference Plan 58R-9995 and Part of Lot 35, German Company Tract, being more particularly described as Part 16 on Reference Plan 58R-10060, to be municipally known as 93 Bankside Drive, be approved, in the form shown in the attached “Proposed By-law”, dated April 12, 2001, with the following conditions: 1)That all tax and utility accounts related to the site be paid in full prior to Council giving three readings of the zone change by-law. 2)The owner acknowledges that Condition 1 is to be satisfied no later than seven months after Council having approved by resolution Zone Change ZC 00/37/H/BS. In the event this resolution is not fulfilled within the seven-month period, Council shall consider rescinding the zone change approval. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City and is in conformity with the City’s Municipal Plan.” 4.BPS-01-060-ADDENDUM TO BPS-01-004 - PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CITY SIGN BY-LAW The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services Department report BPS-01-060 dated April 27, 2001 prepared as an addendum to earlier report BPS-01-004. The report addresses proposed revisions to the City’s Sign By-law in respect to: home business signs, adult sex film theatre signs, roof signs, portable signs and introduction of a new sign type as well as requesting direction as to staff taking a proactive enforcement approach to enforcing the City’s Sign By-law for all signs. It was noted in the report that the approaches being recommended respecting this matter had not been advertised since a by-law has not been proposed. Accordingly, when Council directs staff to prepare a by-law, legal advertisement of the matter will take place before Council considers a proposed by-law. It was also pointed out that the report contained a full discussion of all sign issues and that staff had modified or deleted changes previously proposed following review and consideration of these issues. 4.BPS-01-060-ADDENDUM TO BPS-01-004 - PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CITY SIGN BY-LAW (CONT’D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 14, 2001- 56 -CITY OF KITCHENER Ms. J. Given summarized the report and pointed out key changes where they have occurred as well as noting that many issues had been discussed earlier by the Committee. She indicated that she had met with representatives of several sign companys and acknowledged that there was consensus on some issues and non-consensus on other issues among the participating individuals. As well, Ms. Given advised the Committee that regulations of 8 municipalities had been reviewed and considered and that in concluding the matter staff had worked to achieve a balance of providing proper and adequate signage. Councillor J. Smola entered the meeting at this point. Mr. Paul Lawson, Lawson Mobile Signs, appeared as a delegation in support of his correspondence dated May 4, 2001 circulated with the Committee agenda. He advised that his point was to request that the City take a proactive approach to enforcement of the existing sign by- law before contemplating changes to the by-law. Mr. Paul Lichti, Advanced Mobile Signs, advised that he had met with planning staff as part of the consultation process but had been surprised a recommendation; that was not discussed, was being made that would reduce the maximum number of permits for a portable sign for each business from 6 to 4 per year. In this regard, he advised that this aspect of the by-law was running well and customers have accepted the 6 times per year limitation. As well, he noted that there would be a significant decrease in revenue if the permits were reduced to 4 per year. Mr. Lichti noted that most customers were small businesses and that mobile signs were the most effective way for them to reach prospective customers. In reference to the subject of tower signs, he advised that he objected to a recommendation that would not allow portable signs in conjunction with tower signs. In response to Councillor J. Ziegler, he advised that he supported reduction of the size of mobile signs provided it was seen as reducing sign proliferation. On the subject of fluorescent lettering, he commented that some customers do appear to favour them. Mr. Michael Gaudreau, React/Cambridge/Impact Signs, commented that Ms. J. Given had done an excellent job in addressing the issues of concern relative to this matter. He indicated that he favoured the use of fluorescent colour lettering and pointed out that the staff report indicates that there have not been any problems in this regard. He suggested that there were a few errors in the summary tables attached to the report noting that distance separation for the City of Guelph was 35 metres and duration of permits for the City of London was 12 months and not 7 months. He did suggest that there was an oversight in respect to the report as it failed to deal with sign by-law regulations of the City of Waterloo. Mr. Gaudreau recommended the size of mobile signs be reduced to address the sign proliferation issue and favoured proactive enforcement. Further, he strongly recommended that the City incorporate authority to tow mobile signs without notice when they are in contravention of the by-law. Mr. John Wiese, 338123 Ontario Inc., circulated a submission to the Committee as well as other information that he requested be returned. His presentation dealt with the new type of tower sign and the height and setback regulations. He requested that more than one tower sign be permitted on a site provided it was large enough and allowed for appropriate distance separation between them. Mr. Dave Lamka, A to Z Signs Limited circulated a submission dated May 14, 2001. He suggested that as a means to address the sign proliferation issue fluorescent colours be banned on all signs. Further, he requested that no changes be made to ground signs or mobile signs and indicated agreement that enforcement of all signs would improve the streetscape. He referred to Appendix F of the staff report illustrating examples of portable signs and more particularly to the problem posed by fluorescent signs and pointing out how difficult they were to read. He circulated pictures of signs with fluorescent lettering as an illustration of their negative impact on the streetscape and requested that fluorescent lettering and signs be banned. No other delegations were registered respecting this matter. The recommendations in the staff report were then dealt with point by point. 4.BPS-01-060-ADDENDUM TO BPS-01-004 - PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CITY SIGN BY-LAW (CONT’D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 14, 2001- 57 -CITY OF KITCHENER Recommendations a) to e) and h) were accepted as written. Recommendation i) after some consideration and discussion was accepted in revised form to provide for additional direction asking that staff consider and propose regulations to accommodate more than one tower sign; and ground signs in combination with a tower sign(s) on large sites. It was also suggested that inflatables be permitted for some short period of time. Recommendation g) was then considered and it was agreed that g) i) be revised to allow the number of permits to remain at 6 pear year. Recommendation g) iii) was revised to 60 square feet and it was agreed that recommendations g) ii) and g) iii) become effective 1 year from the date of passing of an amending by-law. Recommendation f) which proposed that no change be made to regulate the use of fluorescent signs/lettering was then considered. Several Councillors favoured elimination of the use of fluorescent lettering and a 3 year time frame in this regard was suggested. However, Councillor G. Lorentz pointed out that he had not received a complaint from anyone with respect to the use of fluorescent lettering and signs. The recommendation that no change be made to regulating the use of fluorescent signs/lettering was then voted on and lost on a tie vote. The Committee directed that this issue be brought forward directly to City Council for a final decision. The recommendation in the staff report asking that Council give direction to the Department to take a proactive enforcement approach to enforcing the City’s Sign By-law for all signs was discussed and there was general agreement that additional details and costs of this approach were required before a decision could be made. Accordingly, it was agreed that this recommendation be the subject of a report for consideration at a future Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting. On motion by Mayor C. Zehr - It was resolved: “That the Department of Business and Planning Services be directed to prepare a by-law to revise the City’s Sign By-law to accomplish the following; ) ‘that save and except for item (f no change be made to regulating the use of fluorescent signs/lettering’, which was lost on a tie vote of the Committee and referred to Council: a)permit home businesses in single and semi-detached dwellings to have 1 fascia sign per lot, having a maximum size of 0.2 square metres (2.0 square feet) of address content and/or home business content and prohibit internal lighting of home business signs b)prohibit the advertising of an adult sex film theatre on a billboard, roof or inflatable sign c)reinstate roof signs d)permit each side of a portable sign to be used for separate businesses requiring a separate permit and constituting 1 month’s permit for such business e)that the permit fee for each side of a portable sign be $25.00 f) (Note - use of fluorescent signs / lettering to be dealt with by Council) g)i)the maximum number of permits for a portable sign to which each business is entitled, remain at 6 per year ii) phase in a restriction on the maximum height of a portable sign to 3.0 metres (10 feet) to become effective 1 year from the date of passing of an amending by-law 4.BPS-01-060-ADDENDUM TO BPS-01-004 - PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CITY SIGN BY-LAW (CONT’D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 14, 2001- 58 -CITY OF KITCHENER iii) phase in a restriction on the maximum sign area of a portable sign to 5.6 square metres (60 square feet) to become effective 1 year from the date of passing of an amending by-law h)that new pylon signs not be permitted to contain any material other than supporting structures within 2.4 metres of the ground i) that a new “tower sign” be created in the by-law which will permit changeable copy as well as permanent copy, subject to regulations which include the following: i)that the minimum setback for tower signs up to 7.5 metres in height be 0.4 metres and 3.0 metres for those between 7.5 and 10.7 metres (35 feet) in height ii) that a tower sign only be permitted on a lot with no other pylon or portable signs iii) that a tower sign must contain the address and marketing name (if applicable) of the development, and that staff consider and propose regulations to accommodate more than 1 tower sign; and ground signs in combination with a tower sign(s) on large sites; and further, That the Department of Business and Planning Services be directed to prepare a report, encompassing details and cost of taking a proactive enforcement approach to enforcing all signs governed by the City’s Sign By-law , for consideration at a future Planning and dealing with a proposed by-law to amend Economic Development Committee meeting the City’s Sign By-law incorporating the revisions outlined above.” 5.ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk