This site is in beta — data may be incomplete and features are still being added.
Committee of the Whole/Documents/DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT (SIGNS) - 131 Presley Place
Staff Report

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT (SIGNS) - 131 Presley Place

April 12, 2016Pages 81–824 sections

Report reviewing sign dimension variances for Urban Ground Market at Lakeside Village.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
April 6, 2016J. Davison, PlannerRequested sign area: 13.9 square metersStaff opinion: Signs are larger than necessary

TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL COMMITTEE REPORT

TO: Committee of the Whole DATE: April 6, 2016 FROM: J. Davison, MCIP RPP, Planner MEETING DATE: April 12, 2016 FILE NO.: 3090-20-2016/02

Page 81–82

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT (SIGNS)

Page 81–82

131 Presley Place (Urban Ground Market - Lakeside Village)

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Committee receive the 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 Development Variance Permit (DVP) for 131 Presley Place, to permit signs for the Urban Ground Market. There are two proposed signs: one facing Six Mile Rd (referred to as the 'front sign' and one interior sign facing the courtyard, referred to as the 'back sign'. Both signs require variances to regulations for character height, fascia sign size, logo height, and together they are over the total area of signs permitted on the building.

BACKGROUND

The signs advertise the location of the anchor tenant, Urban Ground Market, at Lakeside Village within 131 Presley Place (Building A). There are two signs proposed. The front sign, facing Six Mile Rd, is already in place and was erected without applications, sign permits or communication with the Town. The second, interior sign, described as the 'back sign' on the plans, has not yet been erected.

Page 81–82

PROJECT INFORMATION

Proposal

The property is subject to the requirement to obtain a Development Variance Permit (DVP) pursuant to Section 922 of the Local Government Act. This DVP focuses on the consideration of the proposed variance impacting the use and enjoyment of the adjacent properties.

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

  • Applicant's Statement — Applicant — September 28, 2015
  • Site Plans and Elevations — Graphic FX — November 1 2015
  • Sign Photos — Graphic FX — November 1, 2015

The proposed Development Variance Permit addresses the following aspects:

  • Variance to the size of a logo sign from 2m² to 4.2m² (front sign)
  • Variance to the size of a logo sign from 2m² to 2.6m² (rear sign)
  • Variance to the vertical height of a character from 16 inches to 65 inches (front sign)
  • Variance to the vertical height of a character from 16 inches to 39 inches (rear sign)
  • Variance to the maximum size of a fascia sign from 11m² to 13.9m² (front sign)
  • Variance to the maximum area of signs on a building from 11m² to an undetermined amount (other signs on the building will add to this total)

Issues and Analysis

The question before Committee is whether the signs are too large, thus negatively impacting the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. As illustrated in the variances, the signs exceed several regulations within Section 7, Division 2 of Land Use Bylaw 1990 No. 35 by a significant amount. The 'Market' lettering on the front of the building, while not the largest lettering component in the signs, is the most prominent word and is still almost 3.5 feet in height. For context, the external signs at Eagle Creek Village (with a similar viewing distance from the street) were capped at 2.5 feet high.

The signs are visible from the Thetis Vale residential properties backing onto Six Mile Rd.

The signs are 'halo lit', meaning that they are back-lit at night and perhaps not as impactful as internally illuminated signs.

Staff is of the opinion that both the front and rear signs are larger than necessary.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Committee receive the report for information.

SUBMITTED BY: J. Davison MCIP RPP, Planner

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

Page 81–82

Document Images

(7)
Document image
Document image
Document image
Document image
Document image
Document image
Document image
Extracted from: 2016 04 12 Committee of the Whole Agenda