This site is in beta — data may be incomplete and features are still being added.
Council Meeting/Documents/COUNCIL REPORT: DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION 2022/09 - 1681 ISLAND HIGHWAY
Staff Report

COUNCIL REPORT: DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION 2022/09 - 1681 ISLAND HIGHWAY

March 5, 2024Pages 12–1811 sections

Staff report recommending approval of a development permit to refresh the exterior of the existing Burger King restaurant at 1681 Island Highway.

1 CALL TO ORDER- Acting Mayor, Councillor Mattson, called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
1681 Island HighwayFebruary 29, 2024Proposed exterior modifications to Burger King buildingNo variances requested

TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL COUNCIL REPORT

TO: Council DATE: February 29, 2024 FROM: Jeff Chow, Senior Planner MEETING DATE: March 5, 2024

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION 2022/09 – 1681 ISLAND HIGHWAY

Page 12–18

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Development Permit Application 2022/09 be approved as per the report dated February 28, 2024 from the Senior Planner titled “Development Permit Application 2022/09 – 1681 Island Highway.”

Page 12–18

TIME CRITICAL:

There are no time considerations for the Town.

Page 12–18

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The proposal is to refresh the exterior of the existing Burger King restaurant building located at 1681 Island Highway. Proposed modifications include changes to the lower roof (new canopies and raised parapets), partial siding replacement, revised signage, and a light band along the lower roof. Additional information has been provided on signage, lighting, and confirmation that the view of the building from adjacent residences will not be significantly impacted.

The proposal complies with the Commercial Development Permit Area guidelines. No variances are requested so there is no notification of the application.

Page 12–18

BACKGROUND:

The application was introduced at the November 8, 2022 Committee of the Whole meeting. Further details of the proposal can be found in Attachment 1.

Page 12–18

DISCUSSION:

The following supplemental information is provided to address issues discussed at the November 8, 2022 Committee of the Whole meeting:

  1. Information on brightness and intensity of the LED light band

As a visual accent on the building to attract attention, the light band meets the definition of a sign and Section 7.3 of Sign Bylaw 950, 2018 requires that signs must not emit or be lit by light that is brighter than 200 nits between sunset and sunrise (nighttime) and 2000 nits between sunrise and sunset (daytime).

Photo of a Burger King building at dusk with a bright red LED light band along the roofline
Photo of a Burger King building at dusk with a bright red LED light band along the roofline

Figure 1. Example of similar building with light band

  1. Investigate methods other than graphic signs to break up the north and south elevations and animate the pedestrian level around the building

The applicant preference is to have graphic signs at the building entrances (Figure 2), rather than leaving the wall space blank. Staff considers that the graphic signs would not be distracting elements of the streetscape.

Architectural drawing of the south elevation showing a graphic sign, raised parapets, and building dimensions
Architectural drawing of the south elevation showing a graphic sign, raised parapets, and building dimensions

Figure 2. Graphic sign

  1. Provide information on dimensions, material and illumination of new signs

A sign plan (Attachment 2) has been submitted for incorporation into the development permit. The plans show dimensions, materials and illumination. The proposed signs comply with the requirements of Sign Bylaw No.905, 2018.

  1. Provide a colour and material sample board

The applicant will be submitting a colour and material board for inclusion in the development permit to confirm paint colours. Council may wish to note that the design guidelines do not control colour of a building, only the building materials.

  1. Confirmation of side doors

Existing side doors are to be retained and are shown in Attachment 2.

  1. Building visibility from adjacent residences

The topic of visual impacts arose at the COW meeting. A view study presented in Figures 3 to 7 show the building is not visually prominent to the neighbouring condominiums at 286 and 290 Wilfert Road due to a spatial separation of over 79m and a parking lot grade difference of 22m between condominiums and the subject building. Figures 4 and 6 illustrate that the existing building suitably meets the development permit area design guidelines for buffering between commercial and residential uses through distance and topography, notwithstanding that the building predates the condominiums by 12 years.

Orthophoto of the area showing the subject building and viewpoints A, B, C, and D in relation to nearby condominiums
Orthophoto of the area showing the subject building and viewpoints A, B, C, and D in relation to nearby condominiums

Figure 3. Orthophoto showing locations of viewpoints in Figures 4-7

Viewpoint A showing the view from the NW building corner towards the hillside condominiums
Viewpoint A showing the view from the NW building corner towards the hillside condominiums

Figure 4. Viewpoint A from NW building corner closest to condominiums

Viewpoint B showing an elevated view from the condominium parking lot towards the commercial area
Viewpoint B showing an elevated view from the condominium parking lot towards the commercial area

Figure 5. Viewpoint B from condominium parking lot

Viewpoint C showing the view from the NW corner of the building towards the hillside
Viewpoint C showing the view from the NW corner of the building towards the hillside

Figure 6. Viewpoint C from NW corner of building

Viewpoint D from the top of the condominium driveway with the outline of the subject building's roof indicated
Viewpoint D from the top of the condominium driveway with the outline of the subject building's roof indicated

Figure 7. Viewpoint D from top of condominium driveway

Page 12–18

SUSTAINABILITY/CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS:

There are no significant sustainability or climate change impacts with this proposal.

Page 12–18

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

No financial implications are anticipated for the Town.

Page 12–18

ALTERNATIVES:

THAT Council decline Development Permit Application 2022/09 – 1681 Island Highway.

Council’s discretion to grant or refuse a development permit must be based upon the applicable development permit area design guidelines only, and not on extraneous considerations. In accordance with case law, when declining a development permit, Council should provide reasons why the proposal is not considered to be generally consistent with the development permit area design guidelines (refer to pages 12-18 in Attachment 1).

Page 12–18

CONCLUSION:

The proposal is consistent with the Commercial Development Permit Area design guidelines and can be supported for the following reasons:

  • the new parapets are raised to provide variations in roof heights for visual interest along the roofline;
  • the new sign plan is effective for business identification and the layout would be consistent with the overall design of the building;
  • the LED light band can help define the building form without impacting neighbouring residential areas;
  • new canopies would help to break up blank walls; and
  • no variances are required.

Staff recommends that Council approve Development Permit Application 2022/09 – 1681 Island Highway.

CONCURRENCE: Initials Comments
Chief Administrative Officer SS I concur with the recommendation.
REVIEWED BY: Initials
Director of Corporate Administration Not requested
Director of Finance Not requested
Director of Development Services LT
Director of Engineering and Parks Not requested
Director of Protective Services Not requested
Page 12–18

ATTACHMENTS:

  1. Report from the Senior Planner presented at the November 8, 2022 Committee of the Whole meeting
  2. Sign Plan
Page 12–18

Document Images

(1)
Document image
Extracted from: 2024 03 05 Council Agenda - Agenda - Pdf