Councillors Colin Weatherall (Chairman), Richard Walls and Andrew Noone

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, HELD IN THE EDINBURGH ROOM, MUNICIPAL CHAMBERS, ON FRIDAY 27 JULY 2007, COMMENCING AT 9.38AM PRESENT: IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors Colin Weatherall (Chairman), Richard Walls and Andrew Noone Alan Cubitt (Consultant Planner/Handling Officer), Jo Oranje (Senior Planner/Committee Planning Advisor), Richard Murphy (Architect Grade One) and Rebecca Parata (Governance Support Officer) PART A: 1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION 128 CRAWFORD STREET, DUNEDIN The Committee considered an application under the Resource Management Act 1991 from Southern Realty Ltd for land use consent to establish a small-scale commercial activity on site, with commercial offices on the first floor, display signage and no on-site carparking. The applicant was represented at the hearing by Mr Alistair Logan, Solicitor, Ross Dowling Marquet Griffin Mr Jeremy Keating of SITE, a retail strategy company Mr Wyn and Mr Grant Chirnside, owners of the building Mr Don Anderson, Paterson Pitts. There were no submitters present at the hearing. Presentation of the Planner s Report The Handling Officer (Alan Cubitt) spoke to a summary of his report, giving an overview of the proposal before commenting on the notification of the application and the submissions received. Mr Cubitt advised that overall the proposal had been assessed as a non-complying activity. Mr Cubitt submitted that the application had two issues of significance; the proposed use and the impacts of the signs and building changes on the townscape precinct. Mr Cubitt advised that the Architecture and Urban Design department had expressed some concern about the signage and the Crawford Street frontage. Mr Cubitt submitted that any actual or potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity would be no more than minor and that he considered the proposal was consistent, or at worst, not contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the District Plan. Mr Cubitt recommended that, subject to appropriate conditions, consent be granted. Mr Cubitt then responded to questions from the Committee about the number of titles in the large-scale retail zone. The Applicant s Presentation Mr Logan tabled and spoke to his evidence in support of the application. Mr Logan's evidence discussed:

2 The Proposal Status Why Grant Consent Conditions Conclusion Included with Mr Logan's evidence were a revised signage proposal and two sets of photographs showing examples of existing signage along Crawford Street. Mr Logan submitted that the proposed signage was consistent with the existing signage along Crawford Street, and in fact less extravagant than other examples. Mr Logan then responded to questions from the Committee about the proposed colour for the building, the building's façade, the building's access point and what type of signage the applicant would prefer. The Committee sought clarification from the Senior Planner (Jo Oranje) about the extent to which the existing signage along Crawford Street complied with the relevant legislation. Mr Logan then invited Mr Keating to table and speak to his evidence in support of the application. Mr Keating's evidence included a store layout plan and discussed the following issues: Background Submission Access Point - Practical / Technical - Retail Specific Crawford Street Frontage Southern Signage Mr Keating then responded to questions from the Committee about the type of retail activity proposed, the boxing of the windows, Bendon's national standards and what other options had been explored in relation to blocking the existing door. The Committee then asked the building's owners, the Chirnsides, questions about the commercial offices proposed for the first floor, signage for that activity and access to those offices. Council Officer's Comments Mr Richard Murphey (Architect Grade One) was then invited to speak to the proposal. Mr Murphy accepted that the proposed signage was consistent with that on neighbouring businesses but noted that not all such signage was lawfully established. Mr Murphy emphasised that he was speaking from an architectural perspective, and that it was his opinion that the signage in the area has resulted in visual clutter, an adverse effect. Mr Murphy considered that signage should only indicate the whereabouts of an activity, as opposed to directly advertise it or its products. Mr Murphy was relatively happy with the proposed Bendon Outlet sign on the Crawford Street frontage as long as it was centred between the horizontal bands so that it did not obscure architectural features. He still considered the sign on the southern façade to be bigger than it needed to be, but acknowledged that having it painted directly onto the building was an improvement. 2

3 Submitters Seven supporting submissions were received during the during the submission period. No submitters attended the hearing. The Planner s Review of his Recommendation The Handling Officer reviewed his recommendation in light of the evidence presented at the hearing. Mr Cubitt agreed that there were often practical difficulties when bringing old buildings up to modern standards and that at times there could be conflict with townscape principles. He noted that the detail of Mr Keating s evidence had not been included in the application. Mr Cubitt accepted Mr Keating s assertion that there could be structural issues arising from creating larger openings. With regard to the proposed branding sign, Mr Cubitt accepted that it would replicate the size of the window and would maintain some symmetry. He suggested that the sign could be placed behind the window, or at least set back slightly to better reflect the adjacent window. Mr Cubitt noted that the provisions of the Large Scale Retail zone allowed for signage below the verandah or below 3m above ground level where there was no verandah. The proposed brand sign would therefore be permitted in the Large Scale Retail zone. However, the provisions of the Townscape section would still apply. He considered the brand sign to be acceptable in this regard as an attempt had been made to address the townscape issues through the placement and design to relate to the window apertures. In summary, Mr Cubitt noted that the nature of the zone had not changed over time. He submitted that the proposal was consistent with the surrounding environment and that therefore he was reasonably comfortable with the amended proposal. Mr Cubitt confirmed his recommendation to grant consent, with changes to his recommended conditions to reflect the new plans. In response to questioning from the Committee, Mr Cubitt confirmed that he was satisfied that the lack of on-site parking would not give rise to significant adverse effects. He noted that it was common for central city offices to not have parking, with workers tending to lease parking nearby. The hearing took a recess between 10.34am and 10.53am. The Applicant s Response Mr Logan then responded to the issues raised during the hearing. Mr Logan confirmed that painting the sign directly onto the southern façade of the building would amount to a reduction in the area of the sign of around 30-40%. He estimated the painted sign to be 13-14m² in area. He advised that the applicant was happy to locate the Crawford St Bendon Outlet sign centrally between the horizontal bands, and confirmed the area of that sign to be 2.5m². Mr Logan advised that the proposed branding sign had an area of around 4m² and would be mounted on a plywood backing and attached to the face of the building. With regard to the appropriateness of branding on signage, Mr Logan noted the common usage of such signage in the existing environment. In terms of carparking, Mr Logan reiterated that Council's Transportation Planning department and Transit New Zealand had seen the application and neither authority had raised concerns. He noted that potential office tenants would have to consider the parking situation when deciding whether or not to occupy the building. 3

4 RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC It was moved (Weatherall/Noone): That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely, Item 1. The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for making this ruling in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the making of this ruling are as follows: General subject of each matter to be considered 1 Resource Consent Application 128 Crawford Street, Dunedin Motion carried Reason for making this ruling in relation to each matter. That a right of appeal lies to any Court or Tribunal against the Dunedin City Council in these proceedings. Ground(s) under section 48 (1) for the passing of this resolution. S 48(1)(d) The meeting moved into non-public at 11.01am. 4

5 MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC PART OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, HELD IN THE EDINBURGH ROOM, MUNICIPAL CHAMBERS, ON FRIDAY 27 JULY 2007, COMMENCING AT 11.13AM PRESENT: IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors Colin Weatherall (Chairman), Richard Walls and Andrew Noone Alan Cubitt (Consultant Planner/Handling Officer), Jo Oranje (Senior Planner/Committee Planning Advisor) and Rebecca Parata (Governance Support Officer) PART C: 1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION 128 CRAWFORD STREET, DUNEDIN The Committee gave consideration to the Planner s recommendation and to the points raised by the applicant. It was agreed that a site visit was unnecessary. Decision It was moved (Walls/Noone): "That, pursuant to sections 34A and 104B and after having regard to section 104 and 104D of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Dunedin City Council grants consent to the non-complying activity to establish a retail activity (trade outlet); establish commercial offices within the first floor; repaint the exterior of the building; and display signage at 128 Crawford Street, Dunedin, being the land legally described as Section 8 Block XLI Town of Dunedin (CT OT86/29), subject to the following conditions imposed under section 108 of the Act: 1. The proposal shall be undertaken in general accordance with the plans entitled Proposed Building Redevelopment, Crawford Street, Dunedin and other information included in the application dated 11 May 2007 and received on 15 May 2007 except where modified by the Revised Signage Proposal dated 26 July 2007 tabled at the hearing and by the following conditions: 2. That the brand imagery sign on the Crawford Street frontage shall be designed to reflect the dimensions of the existing windows and, in order to create the appearance of a window aperture, it shall be recessed from the exterior face of the building by at least 20mm. 3. That the Bendon Outlet sign on the Crawford Street frontage shall be positioned so that it is located between the horizontal bands between the ground and floor first and so that no architectural features are obscured. 4. The sign to be displayed on the southern façade of the building shall be painted directly onto the building and shall have a maximum area of 14m². This sign shall be painted out with colours to match the remainder of the building when the retail outlet ceases trading at the site. 5. Prior to the commencement of painting work, the consent holder shall supply to Council s Manager Resource Consents for approval the 5

6 details and true samples of the colours to be used on the exterior of the building, including the signage and the framing of the entrance door. 6. Prior to commencement of any works on the site, the consent holder shall consult with the Water and Waste Services Business Unit to determine the water requirements for this proposal. The consent holder shall ensure that the water supply to this building continues to be metered. 7. An RPZ Backflow Prevention Device shall to be fitted to the existing and any new metered water supply, at the applicant s expense as required under the Water Supplies Protection Regulations 1961 as administered by the Water and Waste Services Business Unit. This device must be fitted as close as practicable to the boundary of the premises." Motion carried Reasons for the Decision The following is an extract taken directly from the letter of decision: The Act requires the Committee to set down the reasons for its decision. It also requires that we record a number of other matters, being a summary of the evidence heard, the relevant statutory and plan provision considered, the principal issues in contention and the main findings of fact. These matters clearly form part of any assessment of a proposal and consequently inform the outcome. They cannot be dealt with separately from the reasons for arriving at a particular outcome and are accordingly dealt with in that way in this decision. The subject site is zoned is zoned Large Scale Retail in the Dunedin City District Plan, and is located within the Crawford Street Townscape Precinct (TH03). The status of the activity along with the appropriate assessment criteria were set out in detail in the Section 42A report. We do not propose to repeat that here but merely note that the two uses proposed for the building, the small-scale retail (trade) outlet and the commercial offices are both non-complying activities in the Large Scale Retail zone. The proposed signage and alteration to the buildings are restricted discretionary activities. Overall the proposal is a non-complying activity and must pass the 104D test before we can exercise our discretion to consider the application for consent. The gateway test of section 104D requires that either the adverse effects on the environment will be no more than minor, or that the application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the District Plan. The Committee concluded that the proposal passed through both limbs of this test. The reasons for our conclusion are set out below. Dealing first with environmental effects, we agree with the section 42A report that the key environmental effects relate to the proposal s potential adverse effects on the adjoining Central Activity zone; the impact on townscape values; the impact on the surrounding transportation network; and the impact on the general amenity values of the neighbourhood. We deal with each of these issues below. Overall, the Committee concludes that the proposal will have a limited impact on the viability of the adjoining Central Activity zone. The Committee accepts that the trade outlet operation, which effectively operates as a wholesale or factory outlet, is not generally compatible with the high end retail operations found within the Central Activity zone. The Committee noted that the range of items stocked is limited to one supplier, and the public makes specific trips for specific items as a result. This is in contrast with retailing that generally occurs within the CBD, which is based on comparison retailing (multiple suppliers and multiple choice). The Committee also 6

7 noted that the development is consistent with the existing environment in this part of Crawford Street, which contains a range of small businesses. With respect to the commercial office component of the proposal, the Committee also accepts that the small scale of this component is unlikely to have any significant impact on the Central Activity zone. The Committee accepts Mr Cubitt s contention that the tenants likely to be attracted to this area will generally have more of a back room function as opposed to regular interface with clients and the general public. With respect to the impact on townscape matters, the applicant presented a revised signage proposal at the hearing and the Committee noted that both Mr Murphy and Mr Cubitt were comfortable with the amended proposal, with the exception of some minor changes. Dealing with the sign on the southern face of the building first, the new proposal will see the sign painted directly onto the building. This reduces the billboard effect and also reduces the signs area down to approximately 14m². The Committee noted that this is consistent with the existing environment in this area. We do emphasise, however, that our consideration of the existing environment only extends to those signs that have been lawfully erected in the area. A number of the examples given at the hearing were not lawfully erected and were not considered by the Committee as being part of the existing environment in a legal sense. The Committee also felt that this particular building is unusual in comparison to most of the other buildings in the location in the sense that it retains a very large side wall exposed to public view. The sign will only utilise a very small area of this wall. Turning to the Crawford Street frontage, the Committee felt that the new signage proposal better reflects the relevant precinct values. Two slight amendments have been made through the conditions attached to the consent. The Bendon Outlet sign is to be repositioned within the horizontal band between the ground and first floors to maintain the architectural features of the façade. Mr Keating accepted this as being appropriate. The other change relates to the location of the brand imagery sign on the Crawford Street frontage. The Committee felt that to maintain precinct values, this section of the façade must be designed to reflect the depth and dimensions of the existing windows. The brand imagery sign can then be placed within the recessed area created by this design. The other issue relating to the Crawford Street frontage was the relocation of the door. The recommendation of Mr Cubitt was that the current position of the door be retained in order to maintain the symmetry of the building. However the consensus at the hearing was that the new signage design, using the brand imagery sign to replicate the existing window dimensions, would achieve this. Mr Keating also outlined a number of practical and retail specific reasons for relocating the door to the proposed position. He explained the limitations of the current opening and a number of potential structural issues related to enlarging the current door. He also outlined the new trends in the design of retail space to improve security and efficiency within such outlets. The Committee accepted Mr Keating s evidence on these matters and agreed with Mr Cubitt that there will always be some degree of conflict between the preservation of existing facades of older buildings and their conversion to modern retail spaces. Overall, the Committee felt that the proposed work would have a positive effect on the visual amenity values of the neighbourhood. With respect to transportation matters, the Committee noted that Transportation Planning were of the opinion that there is an adequate amount of parking provided locally to accommodate the proposed usage of the building. On that basis the Transportation Planner concluded that overall the effects on transportation network would be no more than minor. The Committee agrees with this view, and notes that Transit New Zealand had been consulted on the proposal but choose not to submit. With respect to the potential impact on general amenity values, the Committee noted that the existing environment comprises a number of similar retail businesses, located in a high traffic environment. We accept that this proposal will operate over similar hours and will attract a similar number and style of customer to the adjoining 7

8 businesses. Consequently we concluded that the addition of a further retail business and commercial offices in this location would have no impact on the amenity values of the neighbourhood. In fact the Committee is of the view that the proposal will have a positive effect on the amenity values of this neighbourhood through the repainting and revitalisation of what is becoming an increasingly tired looking building on one of Dunedin s main traffic routes. The Committee therefore concluded that the proposal would have no more than a minor adverse effect on the environment. With respect to the relevant objectives and policies, we note that they address issues similar to those addressed in the effects assessment. We further concluded that, with amendments to the design of the signage, the proposal would not be contrary to the relevant objective and policies. The Committee was of the view that the integrity of the District Plan is not threatened by this proposal because the characteristics of this particular site, being just 248m² and entirely covered in building, make it essentially impossible to establish a permitted retail use, or any other permitted use for that matter, on the site. Consequently a sensible and practical use must be found for the building. The Committee concluded that reusing this building in the manner outlined is an efficient, sensible and practical use of the Cities physical resources. We therefore found that the sustainable management purpose of the Act will be best promoted by granting this consent. The meeting ended at 11.38am. C H A I R P E R S O N 8