DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH VARIANCES – 1497 Admirals Rd

TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

TO: Committee of the Whole FROM: J. Davison, MCIP, Planning Technician DATE: May 8, 2014 MEETING DATE: May 13, 2014 FILE NO.: 3420-20-2014/03

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH VARIANCES – 1497 Admirals Rd

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Committee receive this report for information.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendation.

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendation.

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

The purpose of this report is to present the application for a Form and Character Development Permit amendment for the placement of a fascia sign on the building at 1497 Admirals Rd within the Admirals Walk development. The sign is for the Public Service Alliance of Canada office space in the building. The sign is to be located outside of the established sign area on the building; it would be the only sign above the awning on the building.

BACKGROUND:

The 1497 Admirals Rd building is a two-storey retail/office commercial space within Admirals Walk. The site is in a Commercial Form and Character Development Permit Area and thus subject to the associated Development Permit guidelines within the Town's Official Community Plan. The specific guideline to consider is that signage should be consistent with the overall design of the building. This DP would amend DP1996/05.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Proposal

The applicant has submitted the following information in support of their application:

1. Site Plan indicating sign locations
2. Sign detail with dimensions
3. Site photos

The proposed Development Permit addresses the following aspects:

• Consistency of the sign with the overall design of the building
• Variance to the number of Fascia Signs allowed on a building face from one (1) to five (5)
• Variance to the total allowable area of signs on a building (the precise sign area has yet to be calculated).

Issues and Analysis

The issue for the Committee to consider is whether the sign placement is appropriate on the building, and whether the additional sign area is appropriate.

The sign is to be internally illuminated, which increases visual impact at certain times of the day.

Sign Location

This is the primary concern for staff. In staff’s opinion, the placement of the sign above the awning changes the character of the building in a negative way. Staff is of the opinion that the second storey offices in this building are destination offices which are not as likely to benefit from a sign indicating their location. They are not as dependent on foot-traffic business as a ground-level retail establishment. Multi-tenant office buildings typically have central directory signs rather than individual signs on upper floors. Staff would prefer this approach.

Sign Number and Area Variance

As staff has indicated in the past, the Signs portion of the Land Use Bylaw needs revisiting; in particular, the following issues relevant to this application will need revisiting in the future to simplify and clarify what staff sees as the primary issue around signs: total visual impact.

Committee may wish to consider these issues as part of this application:

• Currently the 11m² maximum for all signs on a building does not take into account the size of the building, and therefore does not address the density of signage on the building.
• The number of signs is debateable and largely irrelevant – is the long fascia sign area under the awning one sign? Four signs? Twelve signs? Staff is considering it to be 5 distinct sign areas for the purpose of this application.
• The distance of a sign from the property line at the street is significant in determining visual impact in the public realm.
• Internal illumination signs have a much greater visual impact than non-illuminated signs at certain times of the day.

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

This application's variances highlight the shortcomings of the existing signs portion of Land Use Bylaw. A logical and tasteful design which adequately serves the businesses requires several variances to satisfy the bylaw. Staff wishes to remove many of the existing, overly prescriptive sign regulations in favour of a balance of both more business-friendly sign regulations which are not in conflict with a contemporary commercial design.

CONCLUSION

Staff is of the opinion that the central issue to this application is not the variances to sign area or number of signs, but rather to the proposed location of the sign. Staff believes that the sign location above the awning represents a negative change in character to the building. Staff would prefer to see an alternative solution to the sign placement, such as the positioning on a central directory sign.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Committee receive this report for information.

SUBMITTED BY: J. Davison, MCIP, Planning Technician

REVIEWED BY: L. Chase, MCIP, Director of Development Services

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Subject Property Map
2. Subject Property Orthophoto
3. Site Plan indicating sign locations – April 2014
4. Sign detail with dimensions – April 2014
5. Site photos – April 2014