 |
| Sign Bylaw Open House with Rob Veg, City Planner moderating |
The draft bylaw was prepared by City staff. As explained by Rob Veg, the Senior Community Planner, the City was not reinventing the wheel but rather updating the present bylaw, taking into account new sign types and by looking at other communities bylaws such as Kimberley, Penticton, Fernie, and Invermere. Some of the major changes to the bylaw include a reduction in sign height, a reduction in the number of signs per property, and reduced sizes. Signs that are presently prohibited will still be prohibited. As well, there are guidelines, which are not binding, but provide some guidance as to style, aesthetics, and landscaping.
There was a general feeling of opposition towards the bylaw from a sector of business owners in the room as well as a lack of understanding of the bylaw development process. The draft is a starting point from which the City can fine tune depending on the public input and this meeting was the initial opportunity for the public to comment.
Some of the arguments against a change in the bylaw include concerns about cost (presently all non- conforming signs will be grandfathered) and a general feeling that the present bylaw from 1977 is adequate.
Several members of the audience indicated that the clutter on "the strip" suggests a vibrant business climate. Others indicated that since Cranbrook was a "service community" rather than a tourist destination people did not expect Cranbrook to be "attractive" in the same way as, for example Fernie.
The discussion was lively and wide ranging and the City is determined to provide further opportunities for the public and special interest groups to provide comment.
It you would like to comment on this draft bylaw please contact the City of Cranbrook at 250-426-4211 to request a comment form be forwarded to you by email. Comments need to be returned to the City by December 31, 2012.
There was some opposition to the first draft of the sign bylaw, however I think it is reasonable to expect opposition from business owners who were reading a bylaw that would effect how they could advertise their business, prepared by city staff who I would suggest know less about what impact these changes would have than the business owners themselves. It was suggested to me at the meeting that I was "missing the point" of the draft bylaw Open house, a comment that is repeated in the article. I freely admit that I am missing the point if it means that businesses in the community should not have been consulted before this draft bylaw was prepared. I also repectfully submit that this point of consultation was missed by the current Mayor and Council who promised a more consultative approach to how City business should be conducted. I further contend that the City did not expect this type of turnout and would have moved this bylaw through the required readings much as they have done on previous bylaws including the DCC bylaw and the City budget.
ReplyDeleteCredit should be given to Mayor Stetski for identifying the need for improved community engagement in his most recent speech to the Chamber of Commerce and challenging the community to become more active with regard to decisions that effect Cranbrook, a challenge that was clearly answered at the Manual Training hall on December 5th.
Ken Dunsire
Preparation of bylaws is City staff responsibility. The normal process is for staff to research bylaws and standards that have been adopted elsewhere, then take the draft bylaw out for public review. That is what has occurred here. While the business community is a critical stakeholder in the process, the views of other city residents and visitors to our community are also important. It was hoped that the input would have been more constructive in terms of meeting City goals including those of the Chamber, such as tourism. What occurred at the meeting was deemed by many as hostile and destructive, which was unfortunate.
DeleteAs for the DCC bylaw, which primarily affects the development community, a workshop was held to explain the purpose of the bylaw, and identify the impact of the assist factors on general taxpayers.
The City budget process is advertised in advance and open for the public, but rarely does anyone chose to attend. Another challenge.
As a well travelled customer who prefers a less in your face type of advertising and who steers away from garishly advertised businesses, I would be interested in seeing statistics(not from the sign companies)which demonstrate that brighter, higher, bigger multiple signs attract customers.
ReplyDeleteYour article misleads the readers to believe that all existing signage would be grandfathered. That is partially correct, however the actual term is legal non conforming. This means that any substantial fhanges to existing signage would be required to conform with the new by law.
ReplyDeleteTo further state in your article that the bylaw process was misunderstood by the attendees is incorrect. Many people at the meeting thought that the stakeholders should have been consulted about the by-lay draft in the infancy stage.
One has to compare Cranbrook to other regional hub cities, last I checked Fernie, Penticton, Invermere and Kimberley were not hub cities. It would be interesting to see sign by laws from communities like Kelowna, Dawson Creek, Kamloops, and Prince George.
The draft by law is a large document and quite complex, the interpretations in the wordings are grey and do not provide clear indication. I would encourage anyone to obtain a full copy of the draft before making comments so one can understand the opposition by the community. The document as it stands is incredibly restrictive with poor defintions. If passed in its current draft.. I dare to suggest that the majority of signage along the strip would be deemed to contravene the new zoning.
If the aggressive, hostile and bullying attitude of some of the business owners present at that meeting was any indication of how they treat their customers, they have done themselves a big disservice. The City is simply doing what it is paid to to do - bring this municipality into the 21st century. I daresay city planners know a lot more about designing a town that is attractive to visitors than some of those business owners and isn't that what Cranbrook is ultimately aiming for? The attitude portrayed by several at the meeting was not endearing to anyone.
ReplyDeleteAs a member of the community at large; not a business owner,I attended Monday's meeting to learn about the new sign bylaw and to hear ideas and discussion following the presentation. The hostile tone and remarks that emanated from three or four business owners turned what should have been a reasonable, informed discussion into a divisive and hostile meeting. There seemed little hope of allowing for some give and take and compromise in making changes to the sign bylaw draft. I began to wonder how these business people might treat their customers. Would the same bullying, bad manners and short sighted thinking prevail in their places of business? More savvy and creative thinking might help us to create a city that is good for business and good for residents and motorists(potential customers)who appreciate a visually attractive city.
ReplyDeleteHow do you expect the City to contact stakeholders before a draft bylaw has been prepared? What would they tell citizens they plan on doing if they have nothing in writing or have not done any research? Do you expect them to call every business owner and every citizen in this City (as business owners are not the only stakeholders regarding this issue) to ask for comment. Is that practical or a good way to spend taxpayer dollars? Why would the City change the bylaw process for this particular bylaw only?
ReplyDeleteSo no, Mr. Dunsire you do not understand the process when you are asking for special consideration on this particular issue. All stakeholders now have an opportunity to comment and I look forward to constructive discussion rather than these distracting and false attacks on the process.
I think the City could ask for the co-operation of the Chamber to poll local business in order to get their input prior to drafting this bylaw. If this is "special consideration" then I think it should become a more regular best practice in the development of future bylaws. I think that the City would benefit by moving ahead with information from a major stakeholder. With regard to spending taxpayer dollars, moving ahead without consulting a major stakeholder first is not a great way to save tax dollars and further many people on this site have challenged the Chamber with respect to the value the City recieves from taxpayer support to the chamber, I think this would be one way that the Chamber could add value and is that not what we are looking for?
DeleteI want to state clearly here that I am favor of future draft bylaws of any type being prepared with the consultation of as many stakeholders as possible, a new "best practice". This is something that the Mayor has stated he wants to do and he has my complete support on this issue.
Ken Dunsire
The Chamber does not represent the entire business community. It is not practical nor reasonable to have the City consult with the members of the public and businesses individually. To do so would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming. The approach being taken provides an opportunity for those with an interest in the subject to ask questions and give their views.
DeletePlanning is a consultative approach. One poster states that the business community should have had an opportunity for input prior to the draft...another poster states that is not part of the plannning process and how can you possibly do it prior to a draft.
ReplyDeleteWell precedent has already been set. The city of Cranbrook held workshops on the DCC By-law providing stakeholders an opportunity for input prior to the drafting of any by-law. The Regional District of East Kootenay held numerous workshops in the drafting of the Rockyview Official Community Plan prior to any draft release.
I think the main point to consider is that the city planners chose not to seek stakeholder input in preparing the draft but are expecting comment and recommendations to come in. Nothing wrong with that process. However, had the city staff engaged with stakeholders they might have been able to present a draft that had a better understanding of the technical components that are required in sign making.
The stakeholders were ignored...and in large part voiced their concerns at the open house. So would anyone who is faced with thousands to hundreds of thousands in added costs to their business.
The Bylaw certainly needs an update from its 1977 inception. Now a balance has to be found...this could have achieved by stakeholder input prior to a draft. Here is my understanding of a stakeholder a person, group, organization, member or system who affects or can be affected by an organization's actions
In the end we all have to work together constructively.
Here's an obvious answer to the above comments. Before rolling out a sign bylaw it seems to me that a good place to have started would have been the City's new HWY 3 Committee. The signs issue would have come up. You have good community representation on the Cmte. You would have got feedback (including likely objections and perhaps ideas on how to mitigate) from a good slice of the City's businesses that you could use as a starting point to then tackle a new sign by-law. Even so I'm not sure a wholesale re-write is the way to get community buy-in. Too much to swallow in one gulp. Why not pick 3 key items to change and leave the rest for future consideration. And at the end of the day, with the "non-conforming" protection, does anyone really think much will actually change. The sign content can change as long as the overall structure remains the same. Also, you can always amend the "non-conforming" maintenance section to exclude damage caused by nature or vandalism or any action outside the business owner's control. My advice: table the whole thing, get the HWY 3 COmmittee up and running, ask the Cmte for three key recommendation on changes to the existing sign bylaw, and work on removing the real eyesore on the Strip --the electrical poles/transformers/lines that are higher than any of the signs and are the nost obvious blight on the fabulous views the circle our town.
ReplyDelete