Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2006-06-13 SGCOMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 13, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. P. Britton and B. Isaac and Z. Janecki OFFICIALS PRESENT: Mr. B. Sloan, Senior Planner, Richard Parent, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer and Ms. R. Brent, Assistant Secretary Treasurer. Mr P. Britton, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. This meeting of the Committee of Adjustment sitting as a Standing Committee of City Council was called to consider applications regarding variances to the City of Kitchener Sign By-law and Chapter 630 (Fence) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code. The Committee will not make a decision on these applications 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 the Committee's decisions with respect to sign variances are recommendations to City Council and not a final decision. He advised that the Committee's recommendations will be forwarded to City Council on Tuesday, July 4, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., and the applicants may register with the City Clerk to appear at the meeting if desired. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Submission No.: SG 2006-005 Applicant: Alpine Hyundai Property Location: 44 Alpine Road Legal Description: Part dot 6, Registered Plan 1022 being Part Block L, Plan 1246, Reference Plan 58R-7826 Mr. Sloan advised that the proposed sign has changed for a second time. He recommended this application be deferred, and that the applicant be requested to submitted an updated plan prior it being considered. The Committee generally agreed that consideration of this application be deferred to its meeting scheduled for Tuesday August 15, 2006. The applicant is required to submit current plans to properly identify the requested variance, and a revised Notice of Hearing will be published for this application. 2. Submission No.: SG 2006-007 & FN 2006-002 Applicant: CAWITCA Canada National Building Corporation Property Location: 5 Executive Place Legal Description: Lots 20 & 21, Registered Plan 1650 Appearances: In Support: Mr. S. Vilardi Contra: None Written Submissions: Krebs Holdings The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission, through Submission No. FN 2006-002, to erect a fence having a maximum height of 5.69 m (18.66 ft.) in the front yard and side yard; whereas fences are permitted in the front yard up to a height of 0.9 m (2.95 ft.), COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 13 JUNE 13, 2006 2. Submission No.: SG 2006-007 & FN 2006-002 ~Cont'd~ and in the side yard up to a height of 0.9m (2.95 ft.), and in the side yard up to a height of 2.44 m (8 ft.). Through Submission No. SG 2006-007, the applicant requests permission to have a sign on part of the proposed fence which is not permitted in the City of Kitchener Sign By-law. This sign would be approximately 5.4 m X17.71 ft.) high and 8.5 m (27.88 ft.) wide, and would be located on the east elevation of the fence. The Committee considered the report of the City's Planning Division, dated May 2, 2006 advising the subject property is located adjacent to New Dundee Road and Highway 401. The site is developed with an existing office building. The applicant is requesting both a fence and sign variance. The fence variance is to erect a fence with staggered heights, ranging from 2.74 metres to 6.0 meters whereas the fence by- law permits a maximum height of 2.44 metres. It should be noted that these measurements are calculated at the top of the fence posts, and in this case, the actual fence portion ranges in height from 2.2 metres to 4.6 metres. The sign variance is to permit a sign on a fence where the sign by-law prohibits signs being erected on a fence. Given the nature of the two variance requests, staff has considered these applications together in the formulation of a recommendation. This application was originally heard at the Committee of Adjustment meeting of May 9, 2006, at which time staff recommended refusal. The Committee elected to defer the application to provide the applicant and staff an opportunity to meet to discuss the concerns with the proposal. Staff had the opportunity to meet with the applicant on June 5, 2006. The outcome of the meeting is reflected in the following comments. The applicant reviewed their proposal outlining that the primary objective of the decorative fence and sign were to provide an enhanced building fagade along the Highway 401 frontage of the property and create an outdoor terrace and walkway area. The existing building is one- storey with a brown brick veneer fagade and windows facing the Highway. There is a substantial amount of mature vegetation and landscaping existing around the perimeter of the building, none of which will be disturbed by the installation of the decorative fencing. The applicant has proposed to modify the fence so that there will be more variation in the height of the structure with the highest section being 6.0 metres to the top of the posts and incorporate more openings to enhance the natural light through the existing windows of the building. The applicant is also proposing to add a trellised roof between the fence and the building to create an outdoor walkway. The applicant is proposing to install additional landscaping and accent lighting along the walkway to provide an interesting fagade treatment on an otherwise very basic building. The fence by-law permits a maximum height of 2.44 metres to ensure fencing does not dominate the landscape. This revised proposal will have more of the effect of being a building fagade than a fence, and in that regard staff are now recommending approval of the fence variance. As for the proposed sign to be erected on the fence, the applicant has substantially reduced the size and is proposing to have illuminated individual letters on a transparent mesh background attached to the fence. Since staff are treating the fence structure like an enhancement to the building fagade, a sign on the structure is deemed to be appropriate, not unlike afascia sign on the wall of a building. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated April 30, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. It was noted by the Chair that since this matter was considered at the meeting in May, the Committee has received a letter of objection to these applications, without reasons, from Kreb Holdings. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 14 JUNE 13, 2006 2. Submission No.: SG 2006-007 & FN 2006-002 ~Cont'd~ Mr. Sloan advised that staff met with the architect, as typically staff never recommend approval of signs on fences, and the fence, as originally proposed was extremely large. During discussions, a compromise was reached. The applicant still wants exposure to the highway. Matters considered during meetings with the architect included the existing landscaping, and designing the fence in such a way as to tie it into the building, without overwhelming the building. Mr. Sloan noted that as shown on the revised plans, there will now be openings in the fence for the existing doors and windows in the building. The fence will screen the outdoor amenity space, but will not wrap around the front of the building. Upon questioning by the Committee, Mr. Sloan advised that if these features were park of the building, there would not be a variance to the by-laws. Mr. Vilardi advised he is in support of the staff recommendation including conditions, and he requested permission to amend these applications accordingly. Submission No. SG 2006-007 Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the application of CAW/TCA Canada National Building Corporation requesting permission to have a sign on part of the proposed fence whereas the City of Kitchener Sign By-law does not permit signs on fences, on Lots 20 & 21, Registered Plan 1650, 5 Executive Place, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant shall confirm this by submitting and receiving approval of a lighting plan for the site to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and implement the approved plan within six months of the date of approval; with the lighting plan indicating that the sign is not to be backlit, but that backlit individual letterslsymbols are acceptable, and/or other forms of accent lighting. 2. The applicant shall submit and receive approval of a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and implement the approved plan within six months of the date of approval. 3. That the applicant shall not erect any new pylon signs on the site for the time that the fence/sign structure exists on the property. 4. The applicant shall submit and receive approval of elevation drawings of the fence/sign structure to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and implement the approved plan within six months of the date of approval. 5. The applicant shall obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the proposed sign. 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 Sign By-law is being maintained on the subject properly. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 15 JUNE 13, 2006 2. Submission No.: SG 2006-007 & FN 2006-002 ~Cont'd~ Submission No. FN 2006-002 Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. Z Janecki That the application of CAW/TCA Canada National Building Corporation to erect a fence having a staggered height of 2.74m X8.98') to 6m X19.68') to the top of the fence posts, rather than the permitted 2.44m (8'), on dots 20 & 21, Registered Plan 1650, 5 Executive Place, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit and receive approval of elevation drawings of the fence/sign structure to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and implement the approved plan within six months of the date of approval. 2. The applicant shall submit and receive approval of a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and implement the approved plan within six months of the date of approval. 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 630 (Fence) is being maintained on the subject property. Carried This meeting recessed at 9:54 a.m., and reconvened at 11:25 a.m. with the following members present: Messrs. P. Britton, B. Isaac, and Z. Janecki. NEW BUSINESS 1. Submission No.: FN 2006-003 Applicant: RubenlJennifer Delgado Property Location: 72 Kestrel Street Legal Description: Part Block 23, Registered Plan 58M-181, being Part 192, Reference Plan 58R-12968 Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Delgado Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize a 1.8m ~6') high solid board fence set back Om from River Link Way rather than the required 1.5m X4.9'). The Committee considered the report of the City's Planning Division, dated June 7, 2006 advising the applicant is proposed to legalize a 1.8m high solid board fence located Om from the side lot line abutting a street. The intent of the City's Fence By-law is to have a fence greater than 0.9m setback a minimum of 1.5m from a street line to provide separation from the sidewalk and space for landscaping between the sidewalk and the fence structure to soften the effect of the fence on the streetscape. The proposed variance does not achieve either purposes of the by-law, therefore staff cannot support the application as submitted and recommend the application be refused. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 6, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 16 JUNE 13, 2006 1. Submission No.: FN 2006-003 ~Cont'd~ Mr. Delgado advised that this fence does not obstruct any views, and there is very little traffic on this street. He stated that the back yard slopes dramatically to the fence line, and a 3' high fence would provide no privacy at all. He also advised that he was not aware of the 1.5m set back requirement. Mr. Delgado submitted photographs showing the fence on the subject property. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the application of Ruben & Jennifer Delgado requesting legalization of a 1.8 m (6 ft.) high solid board fence setback 0 m from the side lot line abutting a street, rather than the required 1.5 m setback, on Part Block 23, Registered Plan 58M-181, being Part 192, Reference Plan 58R-12968, 72 Kestrel Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is not minor in nature. 2. This application is not desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 4. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code Chapter 630 (Fence) is being not being maintained on the subject property. Carried 2. Submission No.: SG 2006-009 Applicant: Heffner nexus Inc. Property Location: 3131 King Street East Legal Description: Part dot 27, Plan 986, being Pans 1, 2 and 3, Reference Plan 58R- 7992 Mr. P. Britton declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his planning firm has acted for the applicant on other planning matters, although not on this application, and did not participate in any discussion of voting with respect to this application, Mr. Z. Janecki chaired the meeting during consideration of this application. Appearances: In Support: Mr. D. Rotondo Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission for 2 pylon signs to have cladding to the ground rather than a 2.44m ~8') clearance between the bottom of the sign and grade, and permission for the pylon sign closest to the driveway entrance to be located Om from the property line along King Street East rather than the required 0.4m (1.31 ft.). The Committee considered the report of the City's Planning Division, dated May 29, 2006 advising the applicant is requesting permission to erect two pylon signs to be set back 0 metres from the front o lot line abutting King Street East rather than the required 0.4 m. Both signs are proposed to have an obstruction in the requires sign clearance, and one sign is proposed to have its sign face 1.54 m from grade, rather than the required 2.44 m. A pylon sign is defined as afree-standing sign that is anchored in the ground with the sign face a minimum of 2.44 m above finished grade and has no obstruction within the required sign clearance. Additionally, the by-law states that a pylon sign must be set back a minimum distance of 0.4 m from any lot line. The intent of these regulations is to allow for unobstructed vehicular ingress and egress to a site. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 17 JUNE 13, 2006 2. Submission No.: SG 2006-009 (Cont'd It is noted that two previous variance submissions, S15/90 and S3/99, were approved for pylon signs set back 0 m from the King Street lot line. The subject pylon signs will be replacements for previously existing signs and comply with the minimum separation distance of 15 m as required in the Sign By-law. The proposed signs are 2.4 m and 1.82 m in width and will be placed perpendicular to the street line. The signs will be located in the 3.0 m landscaped area between the parking lot and the street line along King Street East. The proposed 0 metre setback will place the sign 0.6 m from the parking area, which meets the minimum setback required for a pylon sign with a clearance less than 4.3 m. Staff notes that both signs will be a least 9 m from the traveled portion of King Street East and neither sign will encroach into any site visibility triangle. Consequently, the proposed location of the pylon signs will not pose a visibility concern. The signs are in compliance with all other regulations of the sign by-law. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to the installation of the signs. Based on the above comments, staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature, meets the intent of the Sign By-law and is considered appropriate for the commercial use of the property. Staff recommends that the applications be approved. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 6, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Rotondo advised that the existing pylon signs will be removed, to be replaced by the signs which are the subject of this application. A brief discussion took place respecting vehicles parked on the grass at this location, and Mr. Sloan advised City staff will look into this matter; however, this parking does not affect this application for a sign variance. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the application of Heffner Lexus Inc. requesting permission for 2 pylon signs to have cladding to the ground rather than a 2.44m ~8') clearance between the bottom of the sign and grade, and permission for the pylon sign closest to the driveway entrance to be located Om from the property line along King Street East rather than the required 0.4m (1.31 ft.), on Part Lot 27, Plan 986, being Parts 1, 2 and 3, Reference Plan 58R-7992, 3131 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. 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 Sign By-law is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 18 JUNE 13, 2006 3. Submission No.: SG 2006-010 Applicant: City of Kitchener Property Location: 222 Chandler Drive Legal Description: Part dot 48, German Company Tract, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-7799 Appearances: In Support: Mr. L. Proulx Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to erect a ground sign with a height of 1.8m X5.9') rather than the permitted 1.5m (4.92'), and an area of 4.5 sq. m. (48.43 sq. ft.) rather than the permitted 3 sq. m. (32.39 sq. ft.), to be located 1.3m X3.28 ft.) from the Chandler Drive lot line rather than the required 3 m. X9.8 ft.). The Committee considered the report of the City's Planning Division, dated June 7, 2006 advising they have no objections, provided the sign is constructed generally in accordance with the plans submitted. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 6, 2006 advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Proulx advised that the community centre needs 2 sq. m. of space on this sign for programming information. Also, it is necessary to leave a space of 0.6m at the bottom of the sign for landscaping. Further, the location of the sign has been chosen to fit in with the landscaping plan. Mr. Sloan noted that the City's sign by-law is being updated, and according to the current version of the draft sign by-law, this sign would not be at variance. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the application of City of Kitchener requesting permission to erect a ground sign with a height of 1.8m (5.9') rather than the permitted 1.5m (4.92'), and an area of 4.5 sq. m. (48.43 sq. ft.) rather than the permitted 3 sq. m. (32.39 sq. ft.), to be located 1.3m X3.28 ft.) from the Chandler Drive lot line rather than the required 3 m. X9.8 ft.), on Part Lot 48, German Company Tract, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-7799, 222 Chandler Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the sign generally as shown on the plans 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. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Sign By-law is being maintained on the subject property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 19 JUNE 13, 2006 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:47 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 13th day of June, 2006. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment