Proposed electronic message board, located 22.4 metres from a residentially zoned property, be approved, and… be approved

21:15they have graffiti over the front of their building and the side. It's community-driven.

21:21And objectively speaking, an electronic message board simply does not fit with the

21:27visual representation of the theater and the neighborhood. Number four, I have yet to see

21:34any objective need for an electronic message sign. More street is a low-traffic

21:41residential street. I haven't seen any specific intangible evidence whatsoever

21:48that the applicant has shown an anticipated improvement in their business moving from a

21:53traditional billboard sign to an electric one. So I'm not sure if this is a want or a need,

22:00but only one of those could begin to justify a bylaw variance. One of the flies to signs.

22:08Number five, I am in the city of around Ontario and within Quebec. Soon hopefully in

22:16the United States, without question, one could argue like Guelph is one of the most restrictive

22:21bylaws when it comes to signs around. And those are businesses operating in commercial zones.

22:28So I can't fathom how this variance could be approved with any objectivity applied

22:34in a residential zone for a community theater. Approval in my honest opinion would be hypocritical.

22:42In fact, I drove down once into my office this morning and down Claire road to put up my daughter

22:47on her tour this evening and I didn't see a single electronic message sign anywhere. And

22:52those are all commercial zones. Number six, for three years on the little theaters left a

23:01two-foot-five sign made out of scrap wood and rock and hand-painted with the rock closed

23:09on the front of it. It looks like refuse. I like to think before they try to justify any

23:13expenses, fancy electronic sign, but they would at least spend a couple hundred bucks for a

23:18professional no parking sign. And at the end of the day, it's clear to me and hopefully you as well

23:26this variance fails the requirements of the Ontario government and would certainly fail the test,

23:32the litmus test and in similar municipalities around the province with respect to the sign

23:36of the bylaws. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Thank you, Adam. If you can just

23:46stay online, I'll ask counselors if anyone has questions of a clarifying nature for you. Yes,

23:55counselor Chu. Hi, Adam, can you hear me? Yes. Through the chair. Thank you for your delegation.

24:06I'm just taking a look at where the sign placement is and I do and you do make a clear point. It is

24:13less than 30 metres away from where your home is on Moor Street. I guess this is more of a question

24:19to staff. Has there been any alternative locations been looked at? Like perhaps where the parking lot

24:27is, for example, where there's a clear tree line and fence row? Counselor Chu, if I can get you to

24:33hold that question, if we could just ask the delegation for clarifications on theirs and then

24:38we can perhaps ask staff. Okay, yeah, no problem. I guess my question to the delegate would be if

24:48the sign was moved away from Moor Street and elsewhere, would that be acceptable to you

24:54and your neighbours? I don't, again, the fundamental call, I think you have to provide a need for the

25:03sign to be justified for variance and I don't understand the need for an electronic message

25:09sign in a residential zone. Moving it five, six, seven metres away, I don't think it improves it

25:17whatsoever. Anywhere in that parking lot will face directly into the front of the old Biltmore

25:23Towns homes on Moor Street. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you. I have counselor Downer and then

25:34counselor Klassen. Thank you. You, Madam Chair, Mr. Klouac, I just, my understanding in the staff

25:44report is that it was perpendicular to the residences. So you're saying that you will

25:49actually be able to see the sign from your place? Yes, it's perpendicular, but we're looking basically

25:5733 degrees. I see. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Counselor Klassen, please. Yes, through you,

26:11Chair, to the delegate. I just, you mentioned, of course, that Guelph Little Theatre is a

26:18community-led operation and, yes, and I'm aware that it's, you know, led by volunteers. Have you

26:25had the opportunity to connect at all with them and ask them about why they need the sign? Because

26:33they've been there for a long time and they're really, I believe, quite open to having discussions

26:37with the people who live around them. I have not, actually. I didn't reach out to Little Theatre.

26:44I, to be honest, my first city council meeting, I kind of assumed that they would present to kind

26:49of defend their position. As provided from the city, there was no real need listed or

26:57purpose for the sign, just a request for a variance. Thank you. Yeah, I, you know, I know that the

27:08theatre has been there for a number of years prior to the construction of the Biltmore Hat

27:13Development and it is, you know, it is definitely a community operation, but I could imagine that,

27:19you know, having a sign that's visible because it is not directly on York Road would certainly be

27:25helpful for people for wayfinding. Would that be something that, you know, is a good reason

27:30for having an electronic sign, especially when it's not directly on the road?

27:36I would strongly disagree with that. It's almost impossible to miss the theatre. It's on the right

27:42hand side of the road. It's probably seven, eight thousand square feet in two stories.

27:49You know, I certainly couldn't imagine any evidence being presented that would overcome that objection.

27:56Okay, thank you. And then just one more question. I think the report outlined some timing. I can't

28:03think of it off at the top of my head and maybe staff can, can mention it later, but I don't think

28:07the sign is meant to be on all of the time. I think that there are, you know, it will be lowered and

28:12it will be like elevated at different parts of the time. Have you, have you been able to take a look

28:19at that report, part of the report? Because it wouldn't necessarily be shining directly into your,

28:25your home at all hours of the day and night. I haven't seen that report or I reached out to

28:32both you and Councillor Gowler last week and didn't hear back. Councillor Gowler did mention that he

28:39was going to look at the report again and felt that it was lacking some information. I haven't

28:44been presented with any of that information. So, okay, thank you. We can, that's, that's it for me.

28:52I have some questions for staff afterwards. Thank you for your delegation.

28:57Thank you. There's nothing further. So I'm going to go to Councillors and look for a Councillor to

29:03place the recommendations and then a Councillor to second so that it's on the floor and we can

29:08have a discussion about that. I've got Mayor Kam Guthrie moving and seconded by Councillor

29:17Clausen. Thank you. So now I'm turning to Council for anything further on this item. I'm going to

29:24turn to Councillor Chew and then Councillor Klassen and Councillor Kerr on and that's it so far.

29:33Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I'll just repeat my question. Has there been any

29:38alternative sign placements that have been explored on the building, on other points of the building?

29:44Thank you. Yes, through the chair to Councillor Chew. When the application did first come in or

29:53when we were in discussions with it, a ground sign was a possibility,

29:58but staff did feel that the impact would be greater to the residents than changing where the

30:04existing changeable copy sign is on the building from the manual to the electronic.

30:13Okay. Yeah, I appreciate that. If you don't mind me asking, do you think it would be worth exploring

30:22an alternative sign placement? Because I understand where the resident is coming from,

30:26if it's shining directly across the street from where he and his neighbors live.

30:31Like that could be of annoyance for sure, but I do see there may be alternative placements that

30:38could be explored just as a compromise. Is that something that you guys would be willing to

30:45explore with the applicant? Yes, through the chair to Councillor Chew. Reviewing the site,

30:55signage on different locations on the building could actually have a greater impact because

31:02as the caller was saying, it would actually then have more likelihood of facing

31:10the more street dwellings versus being more perpendicular to them.

31:16Okay. Thank you so much.

31:19Councillor Klassen. Yes, thank you through you chair to staff.

31:25My next question pertains to my comment earlier with regard to the timing of the,

31:31the, I think in the report there was a section that sort of explained when the sign would be on,

31:36how it would operate, and I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on that just so that

31:42everyone here in the room could hear it. Just thank you. Yes, through the chair to Councillor

31:47Claeson. The sign by law require permits maximum illumination of 500 nits between sunrise and

31:56sunset. After sunset, that is to go down to 200 nits due to the proximity of residential dwellings.

32:09Thank you very much. Yeah, that's all. Thank you.

32:14Councillor Kerron. Thanks. The delegate brought up some very compelling points and so I just took

32:21an opportunity to just look at whether or not we have anything that I can think of where an LED

32:30sign is located on the roof of a building above the door and it is more than 50% of the sign face

32:43and I can't think of anything. I didn't see anything in the report or are you aware of any

32:47other signs in the city that have been granted both the park stone on the top of a building and

32:54more than 50% of the sign face. I'm not aware of any. Through the chair to Councillor Caron,

33:01there has not been a previous sign variance back when this sign was first installed permitted the

33:08location and the changeable copy of the sign. So I'm thinking of a precedent that we've set in

33:18other residential areas and I remember when Sport Check was at the mall we had an LED

33:23sign at the back of the mall that we had a significant number of complaints about from the

33:27residents of along Scottsdale and the only other sign variance that I can recall recently is one

33:33at the high school on College Ave and in all cases that I can recall they've been located on

33:39arterial roads. They've been below eye level and they've been quite a distance from more than three

33:46meters from residential. So I actually think that looking at the map that this sign it also affects

33:54the properties on York Road as well. It's right in the backyard of York Road properties right outside

34:02second-story windows and so through you Madam Chair I'd actually like to put a recommendation

34:11on the floor for an amendment for both clause one and clause two that the application be refused.

34:17This is not an arterial road it is a residential neighborhood it doesn't meet the 30 meters it

34:22doesn't meet the the tests and the principles of our sign by law and I think that this is a precedent

34:29in a residential non-commercial zone that could could end up having a negative impact

34:38not only on the residents around that area but on future sign by law variances that might be of

34:43a similar nature and try to use this as a precedent. So if I have a seconder I'd like to recommend a

34:49refusal. Is there a seconder? I have Councillor Richardson so the amendment is on the floor do

34:56I'm going to start a speakers list to the amendment to refuse the recommendation. And just just for

35:01clarification with I still have the floor Madam Chair it's to refuse this application that does

35:05not preclude the applicant from coming back with a with an alternate idea that is better in

35:12better alignment with our our sign by law principles. Madam Chair may I have just a point of order.

35:21Yes sorry I just had the clerk right now if if the clerk can. Through you Madam Chair I just

35:28wanted to remind members of of council and provide advice to you as chair that amendments

35:32can't be contrary to the motion. My advice would be that a motion to approve an amendment to

35:39not approve would be contrary to that. If this motion is defeated then that motion could be put on

35:43the floor. Thank you so Councillor Kerron and Richardson if you can withdraw the motion and so

35:52what would stand is the defeating of item 3.2. Yeah my my my misunderstanding Madam Chair I

36:02I know we have to put the staff recommendation on the floor which is a little different than

36:05Robert's rules so I I'll wait thanks. Thank you so I had Mayor Guthrie I think and Councillor

36:14Caten. Mayor Guthrie did you want to get on the speaker's list or just do point of order.

36:22Through you Madam Chair I was just going to do a point of order on Councillor Kerron's

36:27motion because it was contrary but the the clerk beat beat me to it. While I have the microphone

36:33though may I just ask one question. Certainly. Thank you Councillor Kerron in her commentary

36:42said that this is not in a commercial zone but the report clearly states that it is in a specialized

36:47commercial zone. Can staff please correct either me or Councillor Kerron so we have clarity on that.

36:57Through the chair to Mayor Guthrie the sign is in a specialized park zone which permits the theater

37:05use. Okay thank you yeah it says right here key findings the property is located in a specialized

37:14commercial recreational zone has the word commercial on it so I'm just reading your report so

37:25that's am I right or give me a moment please. Thank you. Next I have after the response from

37:34staff Councillor Caton and anyone else if you could just signal. It's on a page one under key

37:55findings the first sentence. Yes sorry it's the P5 zone is a specialized commercial recreation zone.

38:03That's what I thought thank you. Thanks. Thank you I have Councillor Caton. Thank you Madam Chair

38:14through you to staff. So from what I'm hearing it will be perpendicular to the houses potentially

38:22up to a 33 percent viewing of the light and after dark it's going to be 200 some odd lumens.

38:31So can you estimate like if the amount of light that folks are going to see in that area given the

38:38conditions is going to be about the same brightness as a bunch of house lights in front of it or is

38:47it going to be brighter than that. I'm just wondering if this is a case of perceived effect

38:51versus what's going to happen because it's hard to visualize and you know nobody wants brightness

38:57in front of their house. Through the chair to Councillor Caton. It's somewhat difficult comparing

39:09the brightness of a light to the brightness of a sign. Light emits light and a sign is more of

39:18the brightness of it. There is a comparison though so signs your laptop screens are measured in nits

39:29and our street lights are measured in lumens. So our average street light in a residential zone

39:37is approximately 6275 lumens. If you converted that to nits that'd be 1832.

39:51But again that's somewhat comparing apples to oranges because you're looking at the brightness

39:56of the light versus sorry the light emitting from a street light versus the brightness of

40:03a sign. A laptop is anywhere between 200 and 600 nits 200 being the dullest laptop screen.

40:15So I'm wondering if that explanation helped a bit. Thank you. Thank you. I'm trying to visualize.

40:24That was very helpful. Is that all Councillor Caton? Okay thank you. I see no further questions.

40:33So the motion on the... Oh Councillor Caren. Sorry just a question of clarification. We're

40:43talking... Mr. Clewitt lives on Morris Street and we're talking about perpendicular view to

40:48that group of residents. But we have residential homes on York Road. Are those within the 30 meters

40:56as well? Those those backyards on York Road? Are they within the 30 meter distance under the bylaw?

41:06Through the chair to Councillor Caron. No they are not. That measurement is actually

41:1460 meters from the sign location to the property line. But I would just like to state that I did

41:20notify them personally with a letter at their door. Okay thank you. Thank you. Are there any

41:29further questions at all? Okay seeing none we have the motion on the floor. The original motion

41:36moved by Mayor Guthrie seconded by Councillor Klassen that this be approved. I'm going to call the vote.

41:46Is anyone opposed to the recommendations? So I have opposed Councillor Richardson,

41:56Councillor Billings, Councillor Downer and Councillor Caren. Did I miss anything?

42:09Through you Madam Chair just to be certain on a close vote I'd recommend calling for votes in

42:13favour to confirm as well. Okay can I have the votes in favour please? I have Councillor Chew,

42:21Councillor Klassen, Councillor Guthrie and myself. Oh Councillor Caton sorry I missed you.

42:33That vote passes five to four. Thank you. Thank you to the clerk. Thank you. The next item is the

42:434.0 the statutory public meeting and decision report for 585 Helen Creek Boulevard.