Staff Report: FORM AND CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT WITH VARIANCES 430 SIX MILE RD – LAKESIDE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL

FORM AND CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT WITH VARIANCES 430 SIX MILE RD – LAKESIDE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council approve Development Permit 2016/08 as per the report from the Planner dated July 13, 2016;

AND THAT Development Permit 2016/08 include the following variances:

• Variance to the sign elevation relative to second storey floor from 0.76m to 4m for the ‘Urban Ground’ signs on Building A and ‘Sarah Johnson Body Unity’ signs on Building B;
• Variance to permit a sign above the second storey window sill for the ‘Urban Ground’ signs on Building A and ‘Sarah Johnson Body Unity’ signs on Building B;
• Variance to the size of a logo sign from 2m² to 2.6m² for the ‘Urban Ground’ logo sign on Building A;
• Variance to the vertical height of a character from 16 inches to 65 inches for the ‘Urban Ground’ sign and ‘Urban Ground’ logo sign;
• Variance to the area of fascia signs on a building from 11m² to 15m² on Building A; and
• Variance to permit a free-standing sign on a property with buildings closer to 7.5m from the front and flanking lot lines;

AND THAT a condition of the Development Permit be that the ‘MARKET’ and vertical line portion of the Urban Ground Market signage on Building A be removed.

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 Form and Character Development Permit DP2016/08 which amends the existing DP2014/02 by replacing drawings. The drawings indicate amendments to the buildings and landscaping, most of which have been constructed.

The report also presents six variances, requested for existing and proposed signs.

The application fixes changes to the site, which were made during construction, and which do not conform to the existing Development Permit. This application will enable occupancy of the building, and will enable the proposed signs to be placed.

BACKGROUND

The site is a commercial development under a CD-9D: Lakeside Village Mixed Commercial zone. The variances have been mailed to adjacent residents, notifying for the July 19, 2016 meeting of Council.

PROJECT INFORMATION

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

1. Applicant’s statement – Franc D’Ambrosio – May 20, 2016
2. Applicant’s statement regarding pathway considerations – undated
3. Set of drawings indicating amendments to existing DP drawings – FM D’AMBROSIO architect inc.
4. Set of DP2014/02 drawings indicating changes to DP2014/02 drawings
5. Parking Variance Summary Report – Bunt & Associates – Feb 26, 2008
6. Neighbourhood Mixed DP Area Guidelines Summary – Town of View Royal – December 2013
7. Garry Oak tree assessment – Gye + Associates Consultants in Urban Forestry and Arboriculture – July 2013

Staff have identified the variances required:

• Variance to the sign elevation relative to second storey floor from 0.76m to 4m for the ‘Urban Ground’ signs on Building A and ‘Sarah Johnson Body Unity’ signs on Building B.
• Variance to permit a sign above the second storey window sill for the ‘Urban Ground’ signs on Building A and ‘Sarah Johnson Body Unity’ signs on Building B.
• Variance to the size of a logo sign from 2m² to 2.6m² for the ‘Urban Ground’ logo sign on Building A.
• Variance to the vertical height of a character from 16 inches to 65 inches for the ‘Urban Ground’ sign and ‘Urban Ground’ logo sign.
• Variance to the area of fascia signs on a building from 11m² to 15m² on Building A.
• Variance to permit a free-standing sign on a property with buildings closer to 7.5m from the front and flanking lot lines;

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

Changes to the buildings and landscaping were made during the course of their construction. They do not conform with the existing Development Permit, but they do conform with the Neighbourhood Mixed Use Development Permit Guidelines. While Council has the option of requiring that the buildings and landscaping be changed to meet the original Development Permit, staff recommends that the amendments be adopted.

The application is being brought forward to Council with the intention of assisting the applicant with addressing obtaining both occupancy of the building and variances to both existing and proposed signs.

Development Permit Amendments List

The following list of amendments is reflected on the drawings in ‘bubbles’ to show where the changes are being made.

A. Two sliding glass doors on the east face of Building A replaced swing doors to accommodate the function of the market. B. Loading doors on north side of Building A were incorporated to accommodate the function of the market. C. Pathway around south side of Building D to park trail was reconfigured by the client. D. Accessible pathway at south side of Building B to park trail was reconfigured by the client. E. Pathway and stair from upper parking area to park trail is proposed for revision, see letter from client. F. Electrical transformer north of building a was located and the accessible parking stall along Presley Place was relocated to improve pedestrian access. G. Electrical transformer was located at north planting area of parking lot. H. Termination of Presley Place at northeast corner of site was executed. I. Terracing from Presley Place to courtyard was reconfigured to improve pedestrian access. J. A single bridge in the courtyard is proposed and client has opted to delete the movable tree planters at bridge corners. K. Roof top mech. Enclosure ventilation grills have been replaced with solid panels as additional ventilation was not required. Screening of equipment is unaffected. L. Roof top mechanical enclosure above Building D added. M. Minor elevation modifications to window sizes and shapes as per energy efficiency requirements and as initiated by client. N. Canopy to be installed to west facade of Building C & D. O. Grades of courtyard flattened and step added to the east side of the bridge to improve pedestrian access. P. Internal gutter per detail 10/a5.01 eliminated by client. Q. Northwest stair of building a relocated and reconfigured as path to lower level. R. Not used S. Roof slope of buildings increased to accommodate metal roofing requirements. T. Patio material at lower level of Bldg. A & B, reconciled to concrete. U. Handicap access from courtyard to lower patio to be provided with stair lift. V. Building D reconfigured, area of overall project unchanged (see A0.00). W. Screened garbage /recycling area to be converted to small car parking stall. X. Signage changes and proposed signage have been incorporated for review.

Signage

Staff met with the applicant in May, 2016 to arrive at a comprehensive sign plan for the site. The signs and variances as a plan is as clear and as complete as the applicant is prepared to provide, currently. Further variances may be required with further sign applications.

Regarding the variance to the area of fascia signs on the building from 11m² to 15m²: The 15m² fascia sign area was advertised to potentially include the ‘ | MARKET’ portion of the sign if Council wished to retain it.

If the ‘ | MARKET’ portion of the sign is removed, the total area of the signage on the building would not require a variance as the fascia sign area requested is less than 11m² (it is just under 11m²) but staff recommends that the 15m² area be retained regardless, to provide a small amount of additional sign area for an additional sign should the applicant require it on the building. Likely the greatest need for additional signage will be on the courtyard (opposite) side of the building.

If the ‘ | MARKET’ portion of the sign is to remain, there is no room for additional signs without a variance.

Urban Ground Market Sign

The existing Urban Ground Market Sign at 131 Presley Place (which is currently installed) came forward to Committee of the Whole in April 2016 for variances. In response to Council’s concerns, Urban Ground has proposed removing the ‘MARKET’ wording and vertical line from the sign to reduce its total impact. The sign still contains character heights of 65 inches for the lettering in the ‘UG’ logo and lettering of 29 inches in height and requires variances to character height, logo sign size (for the ‘UG’) from 2m² to 2.6m², and location relative to the second storey floor and windowsill.

While the character height in the logo sign is technically a character, the logo sign variance request is moderate and the ‘URBAN GROUND’ characters are less than 2.5 feet tall – in line with the Eagle Creek Village signage size. Generally staff believes that the overall impact of signage is much improved with the removal of the ‘MARKET’ portion of the sign. The ‘MARKET’ lettering is 42 inches tall (3.5 feet tall), which is a foot taller than the largest signs approved at Eagle Creek Village.

Staff believes that, given the potential for future signage on the building due to currently-unknown tenants, that removing the vertical line and ‘MARKET’ portions of the Urban Ground Market sign prevents the market from taking a disproportionate amount of available sign area on the building. Any new fascia sign on the building will require a further variance to the area of fascia signs per building (including fascia signs on the courtyard side of the building).

Stated variances which apply to the Urban Ground Market Sign (Building A):

• Variance to the sign elevation relative to second storey floor from 0.76m to 4m for the ‘Urban Ground’ signs on Building A and ‘Sarah Johnson Body Unity’ signs on Building B.
• Variance to permit a sign above the second storey window sill for the ‘Urban Ground’ signs on Building A and ‘Sarah Johnson Body Unity’ signs on Building B.
• Variance to the vertical height of a character from 16 inches to 65 inches for the ‘Urban Ground’ sign and ‘Urban Ground’ logo sign.
• Variance to the area of fascia signs on a building from 11m² to 15m² on Building A.

Note that a condition of the Development Permit, as recommended by staff, will be the removal of the vertical line and the ‘MARKET’ portion of the sign. An alternative recommendation will not require that condition.

Sarah Johnson Body Unity Sign (Building B):

There is a discrepancy between the proposed sign within the Development Permit drawings and what the Sarah Johnson Body Unity yoga studio tenants submitted as a sign permit application. The developer has indicated that the tenant submission is the correct one. The sign requires the stated variances to the height relative to the second storey floor and windowsill:

• Variance to the sign elevation relative to second storey floor from 0.76m to 4m for the ‘Urban Ground’ sign on Building A and ‘Sarah Johnson Body Unity’ sign on Building B.
• Variance to permit a sign above the second storey window sill for the ‘Urban Ground’ sign on Building A and ‘Sarah Johnson Body Unity’ sign on Building B.

Free-Standing Sign

The free-standing sign is located at the northwest corner of the site, proposed to provide exposure to businesses on the property. It requires a variance as the buildings are too close to the front and flanking property lines to permit such a sign:

• Variance to permit a free-standing sign on a property with buildings closer to 7.5m from the front and flanking lot lines;

All signs combined on Building A:

• Variance to the area of fascia signs on a building from 11m² to 15m² on Building A.

ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION

An alternative to the recommendation would be to permit the vertical line and ‘MARKET’ sign portions stay (that the condition to remove that portion of the sign be removed). For clarity this would require changing the wording of the recommendation to the following:

THAT Council approve Development Permit 2016/08 as per the report from the Planner dated July 13, 2016;

AND THAT Development Permit 2016/08 include the following variances:

• Variance to the sign elevation relative to second storey floor from 0.76m to 4m for the ‘Urban Ground | Market’ signs on Building A and ‘Sarah Johnson Body Unity’ signs on Building B;
• Variance to permit a sign above the second storey window sill for the ‘Urban Ground | Market’ signs on Building A and ‘Sarah Johnson Body Unity’ signs on Building B;
• Variance to the size of a logo sign from 2m² to 2.6m² for the ‘Urban Ground’ logo sign on Building A;
• Variance to the vertical height of a character from 16 inches to 65 inches for the ‘Urban Ground | Market’ sign and ‘Urban Ground’ logo sign;
• Variance to the area of fascia signs on a building from 11m² to 15m² on Building A; and
• Variance to permit a free-standing sign on a property with buildings closer to 7.5m from the front and flanking lot lines;

ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION #2

A second alternative would be that Council not approve amendment items A-X, which amend Development Permit 2014/02, as described within this report. As a consequence of not approving the proposed amendments, the applicant would not be permitted occupancy of the buildings on site.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council approve Development Permit 2016/08 as per the report from the Planner dated July 13, 2016;

AND THAT Development Permit 2016/08 include the following variances:

• Variance to the sign elevation relative to second storey floor from 0.76m to 4m for the ‘Urban Ground’ signs on Building A and ‘Sarah Johnson Body Unity’ signs on Building B;
• Variance to permit a sign above the second storey window sill for the ‘Urban Ground’ signs on Building A and ‘Sarah Johnson Body Unity’ signs on Building B;
• Variance to the size of a logo sign from 2m² to 2.6m² for the ‘Urban Ground’ logo sign on Building A;
• Variance to the vertical height of a character from 16 inches to 65 inches for the ‘Urban Ground’ sign and ‘Urban Ground’ logo sign;
• Variance to the area of fascia signs on a building from 11m² to 15m² on Building A; and
• Variance to permit a free-standing sign on a property with buildings closer to 7.5m from the front and flanking lot lines;

AND THAT a condition of the Development Permit be that the ‘MARKET’ and vertical line portion of the Urban Ground Market signage on Building A be removed.

SUBMITTED BY: J. Davison, MCIP RPP, Planner

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Subject Property Map
2. Subject Property Orthophoto
3. Applicant’s statement – Franc D’Ambrosio – May 20, 2016
4. Applicant’s statement regarding pathway considerations – undated
5. Set of drawings indicating amendments to existing DP drawings – FM D’AMBROSIO architect inc.
6. Set of DP2014/02 drawings indicating changes to DP2014/02 drawings
7. Sign Plan - staff
8. Freestanding Sign Detail - staff
9. Urban Ground Sign Illustrations – Graphic FX - November 1 2015
10. Sarah Johnson Body Unity Sign Illustrations – Houston Sign May 26 2016