? Community Information Meeting Thursday, April 14, 2016 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Roadside Signage on Gabriola Island

Community Information Meeting Thursday, April 14, 2016 Agricultural Hall, Gabriola 6:00 – 8:00 pm

?

• 1. To publicly share and receive feedback on the results of the

Roadside Signage survey; and

• 2. To have a group discussion around possible next steps for

where to go from here

Purpose of this Meeting

Gabriola Island Roadside Signage Survey Results

486

Total Responses 312 Survey Monkey online & 174 paper-based

Question 1:

Answered: 469 Skipped: 17

97% 3%

Are you a resident of Gabriola Island?

Yes No

Question 2:

Answered: 405 Skipped: 81

28% 7% 65%

Please select all that apply:

I am an owner or operator of a home-based business on Gabriola Island I am an owner or operator of a commercial, industrial, or institutional business on Gabriola Island (non-residential) I am not an owner or operator of a business on Gabriola Island

Question 3:

Answered: 482 Skipped: 4

Safety and visibility of pedestrians/cyclists Safety and visibility of motorists Aesthetics Rural Character Directing traffic to commercial/industrial/institutional businesses Directing traffic to home-based businesses Advertising commercial/industrial/institutional businesses Advertising home-based businesses Promoting special events

0 1 2 3 4 5

Answered: 480 Skipped: 6

• 4. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

Signs should be permitted along road rights-of-way for the purpose of directing traffic to commercial / industrial / institutional businesses Signs should be permitted along road rights-of-way for the purpose of directing traffic to home-based businesses Signs should be permitted along roadways for the purpose of promoting special events Sign design should conform to the MOTI provincial standard and guidelines Sign design should reflect the “uniqueness” of Gabriola to go outside the provincial sign standards and incorporate materials and designs by local artisans and crafts people 0 1 2 3 4 5

Question 5:

Answered: 476 Skipped: 10

23% 46% 18% 13%

Thinking about the location of existing sandwich board signs on Ferry Hill, please select the statement with which you most agree:

All sandwich boards are unacceptable and should be removed The existing sandwich board signs are acceptable in their current locations The existing sandwich board signs are acceptable but they should be consolidated into one well-marked location Other (please explain):

Question 6:

Answered: 475 Skipped: 11

25% 50% 2% 14% 9%

Thinking about the size of existing sandwich board signs on Ferry Hill, please select the statement with which you most agree:

All sandwich boards are unacceptable and should be removed The existing sandwich board signs are acceptable in size The existing sandwich board signs should be smaller The existing sandwich board signs should be larger Other (please explain):

Question 7:

Answered: 469 Skipped: 17

42% 37% 21%

Do you support amending OCP policies concerning roadside signage?

Yes No Unsure

Question 8:

Answered: 469 Skipped: 17

5% 42% 38% 15%

Which of the following best suits your

• pinion of this regulation?

Too big Too small Just right Unsure

Question 9:

Answered: 473 Skipped: 13

83% 15% 2%

Do you believe that "obsolete" signs should be removed?

Yes No Unsure

Question 10:

Answered: 474 Skipped: 12

81% 15% 4%

Do you believe that "derelict" signs should be removed?

Yes No Unsure

Question 11:

Answered: 468 Skipped: 18

49% 34% 17%

Do you support amending the LUB to include more specific regulations for permanent roadside signage?

Yes No Unsure 48% 38% 14%

Do you support amending the LUB to include specific development guidelines to address the aesthetic appearance of permanent roadside signage?

Yes No Unsure

Question 12:

Answered: 467 Skipped: 19

Question 13:

(See Survey Results handout for complete list of comments)

Question 15:

Answered: 464 Skipped: 22

61% 30% 9%

Do you support the concept

• f group/multi-party signage

to provide directions to businesses?

Yes No Other (please explain):

Question 14:

Answered: 464 Skipped: 22

51% 41% 8%

Do you support the concept

• f group/multi-party signage

for business advertising?

Yes No Other (please explain):

Question 16: Which of the following locations do you think would be suitable for group/multi-party signs (please select all that apply)?

Answered: 348 Skipped: 138

0% 20% 40% 60%

• G. Drumbeg Park / Degnen Bay Area
• F. Silva Bay Area
• E. Dragon's Lodge Area
• D. Horseshoe Triangle and Barrett Road
• C. Wishbone Area / Post Office corner
• B. Ferry Hill Area (int. of North/Taylor Bay Rd)
• A. Near the Haven / Twin Beaches Mall Area

Business Directional Business Advertising

Question 17:

(See Survey Results handout for complete list of comments)

Clear Direction from Survey Responses:

• Strong feedback to say that both “obsolete” and “derelict” signs should be removed
• Most important concern for roadside signage: safety and visibility (for pedestrians, cyclists, and

motorists)

• Least important purpose of roadside signage: advertising for businesses of any kind
• Roadside signs should be permitted for the purpose of promoting special events (MOTI already

has process to apply to put up temporary (not permanent) signs in the right-of-way)

• Strong support of the concept of group/multi-party signs for providing directions to businesses
• With preferred locations being:
• Ferry Hill,
• Wishbone/Post Office corner,
• Silva Bay, and
• Near the Haven/Malaspina Galleries/Gabriola Sands/Twin Beaches Mall

• Roadside sign design to conform to MOTI provincial standards and guidelines, or reflect the

“uniqueness” of Gabriola?

• Half of respondents agreed that the existing sandwich board signs are acceptable in their

current size and locations.

• 38% felt that the current sign size regulation of 0.3 square metres (3.2 square feet) was just

right, but another 42% felt it should actually be bigger. (What to do…?)

• Respondents were split on amending Official Community Plan policies for roadside signage,

(Many unsure and/or wanting to know first what the proposed changes might be)

• Nearly half supported amending the Land Use Bylaw with regards to permanent roadside

signage: both to include more specific regulations, and also to include specific development guidelines to address the aesthetic appearance.

• Preferred locations for group/multi-party signs for business advertising: less than 40%

agreement on any of the suggested locations (even though more than half supported the concept)

Unclear Direction from Survey Responses:

Group Discussion for Next Steps…

• Tonight let’s aim to answer the question: so where do we go from here?
• Next Local Trust Committee meeting:
• Thursday, May 26th (10:15 am at Gabriola Arts & Heritage Centre - 476 South Rd)
• Staff will present draft recommendations for Roadside Signage Strategy
• Public welcome to attend!

• 1. Personally, what do the results mean to you?
• 2. Which are the most important items to address? (think about

clear vs. unclear direction…)

• 3. What will be the next steps in terms of implementation? (how

can we achieve a “For Gabriola, by Gabriola” solution here?)

Questions for Discussion

Example of Signage from Thetis Island (near the ferry, at the T-intersection)