SDAB Additional Submission. Hello, Please find the presentation for DP attached. Regards, Maurie Loewen

Transcription

1 94 Appeal Boards Rec'd April 12, 2018 Submitted by: M.Loewen, Planning & Development From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Loewen, Maurie Calgary SDAB Info; Dean Fraser presentation.pptx Thursday, April 12, :39:23 PM presentation.pdf SDAB pdf SDAB pdf CO Meridian Rd NE.msg image001.png image002.png image003.png Hello, Please find the presentation for attached. Regards, Maurie Loewen Assistant Technical Lead Planner Calgary Building Services Planning & Development T

2 95

3 96

4 97

5 98

6 99

7 100

8 101

9 102

10 103

11 104

12 105

13 106

14 107

15 108

16 109

17 110

18 111

19 112

20 113 Bylaw Requirement Provided Relaxation Must not be within 30 m of a an approved Freestanding Sign facing the same oncoming traffic (S (1 & 2) Must not remove trees to improve visibility of the sign (S. 73(12) & 115.3(4)) Compatible with general architectural lines, character of streetscape (S (1)) 30 m 23 m -7 m 23.3% Tree has been removed % Not Compatible %

21 114

22 115 Approved Freestanding DP Proposed Sign

23 Air Photo 2017 Air Photo

24 117

25 118

26 119

27 120

28 121

29 122

30 123

31 124

32 125

33 126

34 127

35 128 Calgary Third Party Advertising Sign Guidelines Land Use Bylaw

36 129

37 130

38 131

39 132

40 133

41 134

42 135 X X X X X X

43 136 X X X X X X X X X X NA X NA NA X

44 137 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Scarpino, Vincenzo Loewen, Maurie CO Meridian Rd NE Monday, October 30, :35:32 AM IMG_1051.JPG IMG_1050.JPG IMG_1052.JPG image001.png Good Morning Maurie, I have attached a few photos of the missing tree. As per our conversation last week I have not yet heard back from Urban Forestry to see if they removed tree orif permission was given. I will update as I hear. Speaking with one of the admin staff at the business located at the property she said she did not see it come down or who cut it down but did confirm that it was taken down after the sign was completed. Thanks Vincenzo Scarpino Development Inspector Calgary Building Services Planning & Development The City of Calgary Mail code: #251 T F Macleod Tr. S.E. P.O. Box 2100, Station M, Calgary, AB Canada T2P 2M5 ISC: Protected

45 138

46 139

47 140

48 141 Calgary P.O. Box 2100, Station M, # 8110, Calgary, AB T2P 2M5 info@calgarysdab.ca CALGARY SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD Citation: 2017 CGYSDAB 53 Case Name: SDAB (Re) 2017 CGYSDAB 53 (CanLII) File No: DP Appeal by: Appeal against: Dean Fraser Development Authority of The City of Calgary Hearing date(s): August 10, 2017; September 7, 2017 Decision date(s): September 28, 2017 Board members: Bill Chomik, Chair Michael Meredith Judy Steele Katherine Wagner DECISION

49 FILE NO. DP APPEAL NO. SDAB Description of Application: 1 The appeal before the (Board) deals with a refusal by the Development Authority of a development permit made on the application of Go Outdoor Advertising for a temporary use: sign - class G (digital third party advertising sign - north & south facing, 3 years) at 2825 Sunridge Way NE. The property is located in the community of Sunridge and has a land use designation of Commercial-Corridor 3 (C-COR3 f1.0h30) District. Decision: A. The appeal is denied and the decision of the Development Authority is upheld. B. A development permit shall not be issued CGYSDAB 53 (CanLII) Hearing Date(s): 2 The hearing commenced on August 10, 2017 with consideration of procedural issues. The Board adjourned the hearing to September 07, 2017 with the consent of all parties involved. Appearances: 3 The Board heard verbal submissions from: Maurie Loewen, Assistant Technician Lead Planner with the Planning & Development Calgary Business Services representing the Development Authority; Dean Fraser of Go Outdoor Advertising, the appellant/applicant, in favour of the appeal; and Al-Karim Khimji, the property owner in favour of the appeal. Summary of Evidence: 4 The Board reviewed all evidence and arguments written and oral submitted by the parties and will focus on key evidence and arguments in outlining reasons. Development Authority Submissions 5 The Development Authority refused the application on several grounds. It provided written reasons for its decision and referred to the PowerPoint presentation on pages 56 to 76 of the Board report and to Exhibit M, which are summarized as follows: Page 2 of 7 ISC: Unrestricted

50 FILE NO. DP APPEAL NO. SDAB The Development Authority s review of this application considered the rules of the Land Use Bylaw, the Calgary Third Party Advertising Sign Guidelines and technical information provided by The City of Calgary Transportation Department Roads engineering group. 7 The proposed sign location is adjacent to and 5.7 metres from a regional pathway which receives year round maintenance by The City of Calgary. The Land Use Bylaw requires that digital third party advertising signs must be metres from a pathway when the copy is visible. The proposed sign development requires a significant relaxation with respect to the pathway adjacency. 8 The Development Authority utilized the stopping site and decision site distance parameters provided by the Transportation Department Roads engineers. The Transportation Department plotted the DPAD (digital and projected advertising displays) restricted area at the 16 th Avenue NE (Trans-Canada Highway) and Barlow Trail NE intersection, noting that the proposed north-south facing sign is within the interchange stopping sight distance restricted area. Decision guide distance is provided by Transportation Association of Canada engineering reference standards. The Transportation Department provided that the proposed sign will increase the risk and pose a distraction to drivers therefore Transportation Department Roads recommends not approving the proposed sign development permit CGYSDAB 53 (CanLII) 9 The proposed sign would be visible from the Trans-Canada Highway. The Land Use Bylaw prohibits signs where the sign is positioned such that the copy would be visible from the Trans-Canada Highway. 10 The Development Authority believes that adding the digital display panel at a location where there is a nearby digital message sign will create visual clutter. The proposed sign is within approximately metres of an existing digital message sign; the Land Use Bylaw requires a minimum separation distance of metres between digital display signs to avoid visual sign clutter. 11 In evaluating the application, the Development Authority is of the opinion that the proposed location for the sign is inappropriate because the operational characteristics of signs with digital displays increase their ability to attract attention and potentially distract drivers as they attempt to follow the changing messages and images. The proposed sign is too close to the interchange. In addition the proposed sign is too close to the regional pathway. The Development Authority argued that the proposed sign would be in conflict with Council policy; Third Party Sign Guidelines and the Land Use Bylaw. Appellant / Applicant (Appellant) Submissions 12 Dean Fraser of Go Outdoor Advertising, the appellant in favour of the appeal, read and referred to pages 81 to163 of the Board report and also to Exhibit D. Dean Fraser and Al-Karim Khimji, the property owner, stated the following in favour of the appeal: Page 3 of 7 ISC: Unrestricted

51 FILE NO. DP APPEAL NO. SDAB The appellant provided an overview of existing signs in the area. With respect to proximity of the proposed sign to an existing digital sign, the appellant provided that the Third Party Advertising Sign Guidelines should not apply to these circumstances given that the existing sign shows only date and time display. 14 The appellant provided that the intersection at 16 th Avenue NE and Barlow Trail NE is not a high collision area based on information extracted from the Calgary Safety Mobility Plan. 15 The appellant provided that the Land Use Bylaw requirement that digital third party signs must be a minimum 450 metres from a pathway when the copy is visible is too restrictive. 16 The appellant provided that it will be difficult to see the proposed sign from the Trans-Canada Highway given existing trees, travel speed, short windows of visibility and distance from the intersection CGYSDAB 53 (CanLII) 17 The property owner indicated that guests of the Staybridge Suites were considered in the design, location and orientation of the proposed sign. Affected Persons Submissions 18 No one spoke in opposition to the appeal, however two letters of objection from commercial businesses adjacent to the proposed sign site were received. Rebuttal 19 Upon rebuttal, Mr. Loewen of the Development Authority raised the following: 20 The Development Authority argued that roads are not controlled environments, especially on interchanges, as each intersection is unique. The interchange at 16 th Avenue NE and Barlow Trail NE is one of the oldest in the city; this configuration is no longer utilized. The Land Use Bylaw provides authority to the General Manager, Transportation, to indicate appropriate separations; Roads is a division within the Transportation Department therefore the people who commented on this application are designated that task by the General Manager of Transportation. The information provided is based on statistical data and calculations. 21 The Transportation Association of Canada guidelines are engineering reference standards, they are not City policies. The Development Authority utilizes and considers the Land Use Bylaw when making a decision. 22 The Third Party Advertising Sign Guidelines are adopted by resolution. Reasons: Page 4 of 7 ISC: Unrestricted

52 FILE NO. DP APPEAL NO. SDAB The proposed development is a discretionary use pursuant to the Land Use Bylaw 1P2007. Therefore, it can either be granted or refused based on sound planning considerations. 24 Section 35 of the Land Use Bylaw sets out certain factors that the Development Authority must consider when evaluating a development permit for a discretionary use. In particular, these factors include plans and policies affecting the parcel, the compatibility and impact of the proposed development with respect to adjacent development and the neighborhood, and the merits of the proposed development. 25 The Board did not consider the proposed sign location which infringes upon the adjacent right of way, or the proposed sign design which incorporates an open back. 26 The Board pays attention to all applicable legislation, policy and guidelines, with particular attention to the following: 2017 CGYSDAB 53 (CanLII) Calgary Land Use Bylaw 1P2007 Third Party Advertising Sign Guidelines. 27 The Development Authority argued that the proposed sign is not in compliance with the Land Use Bylaw 104(3) with respect to distances between digital third party and digital message signs. The Land Use Bylaw indicates that there must be at least metres between digital third party advertising signs and digital message signs facing the same oncoming traffic. The proposed sign is approximately 181 metres from an existing digital message sign facing the same oncoming traffic. The Land Use Bylaw intends to prevent driver distraction and sign proliferation. The Board supports the position of the Development Authority and finds that proliferation of signage and driver distraction are problems that will be created with the introduction of the proposed sign. 28 Further, the proposed sign is subject to The City of Calgary Third Party Advertising Sign Guidelines, approved by Council in July Section 4(B) provides guidance for the location and siting of Third Party Advertising Signs in relation to public safety. Principle II states that Third-Party Advertising Signs must be located on private property along streets in such a way that their location mitigates or avoids risk to public safety. The location should not create an obstruction to vision or contribute to visual confusion with official traffic control devices. Principle V states that Along a street or corridor, minimum separation distances between Third Party Advertising Signs on different properties will maintain proper visibility of all signs and avoid visual sign clutter along the streetscape including the undue concentration of Third Party Advertising Signs along a street. The Board considers that the distance to an existing digital message sign facing the same oncoming traffic, as well as other advertising signs, provides for sign proliferation, driver distraction and visual clutter. 29 The Development Authority argued that the proposed sign location is within the DPAD (digital and project advertising displays) restricted area at the 16 th Avenue NE Page 5 of 7 ISC: Unrestricted

53 FILE NO. DP APPEAL NO. SDAB (Trans-Canada Highway) and Barlow Trail NE intersection as plotted by Transportation Department engineers. The proposed north-south facing sign is within the interchange stopping sight distance restricted area; decision guide distance is provided by Transportation Association of Canada engineering reference standards. The Board finds that the proposed location of the digital third party sign, within the DPAD (digital and projected advertising displays) restricted area at the 16 th Avenue NE (Trans- Canada Highway) and Barlow Trail NE intersection as plotted by Transportation Department engineers, will pose safety concerns to vehicular, cyclist and pedestrian traffic. 30 The Land Use Bylaw prohibits the placement of digital third party advertising signs within metres from pathways when the copy is visible. The Development Authority noted that the proposed sign is within 5.7 metres of the regional pathway. The Board supports the bylaw s intent to provide users of the pathway with an experience devoid of the presence of digital signage and therefore finds that the close proximity of the sign to the pathway is too great to allow the significant relaxation CGYSDAB 53 (CanLII) 31 The Board has consideration of the two letters of objection received from commercial businesses adjacent to the proposed sign site. Conclusion: For the reasons set out above, the appeal is denied and the decision of the Development Authority is upheld. A development permit shall not be issued. Bill Chomik, Chair Katherine Wagner, Board Member Page 6 of 7 ISC: Unrestricted

54 FILE NO. DP APPEAL NO. SDAB Issued on this 28 th day of September, CGYSDAB 53 (CanLII) Page 7 of 7 ISC: Unrestricted

55 148 Calgary P.O. Box 2100, Station M, # 8110 Calgary, AB T2P 2M5 info@calgarysdab.ca CALGARY SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD Citation: 2017 CGYSDAB 107 Case Name: SDAB (Re) File No: DP CGYSDAB 107 (CanLII) Appeal by: Appeal against: Chris Roubekas Development Authority of The City of Calgary Hearing dates: December 14, 2017 Decision date: January 19, 2018 Board members: Stefne Madison, Vice Chair and Presiding Officer Michelle Pink Katherine Wagner Katherine Camarta Michael Meredith DECISION

56 FILE NO. DP APPEAL NO. SDAB Description of Application: 1 The appeal before the ( Board ) was brought by Chris Roubekas. 2 On November 23, 2017, the Development Authority refused Mr. Roubekas application for a new: sign Class E (Digital Message Sign) at 46 Hopewell Way NE in the community of Horizon. The property is owned by UFCW Property Management Corporation (the UFCW ) and has a land use designation of Commercial Corridor3 f1.0 h20 (C-Cor3). The proposed development is a discretionary development within the district. Procedural History: 2017 CGYSDAB 107 (CanLII) 3 The hearing commenced and concluded on December 14, Decision: 4 The appeal is denied and the decision of the Development Authority is upheld. A Development Permit will not be issued. Appearances: 5 The Board heard verbal submissions and received written submissions from Chris Roubekas, the applicant/appellant, and Doug O Halloran, the owner s representative. The Development Authority provided written submissions but did not attend the hearing. These written submissions can be found in the Board Report. Background and Summary of Evidence: 6 The Board reviewed all evidence and arguments, written and oral, submitted by the parties and will focus on key evidence and arguments in outlining its reasons. Development Authority 7 In evaluating the application, the Development Authority determined that the proposed sign is contrary to the Bylaw (the Bylaw ). The type, size, height, and location of the sign is incompatible with the architectural lines of the building; will dominate and overshadow the building; and will create proliferation. The Development Authority submitted that this development is out of context and materially different than expected forms of development. The Development Authority also noted that there is a required relaxation for the size of the proposed sign. The relaxation is square metres or 482 precent of the allowable size under the Bylaw. Page 2 of 7 ISC: Unrestricted

57 FILE NO. DP APPEAL NO. SDAB In their response to the appeal, the Development Authority noted that the Bylaw has recently been amended and has eliminated a required separation distance between signs, instead allowing one digital identification sign per parcel. The Development Authority considers a sign that is 5 times the allowed size to be proliferation. The large sign may discourage other businesses from seeking signage opportunities or create a situation where everyone wishes to have a sign this size. 9 The Development Authority notes that this parcel, and the others sharing a property line with McKnight Trail do not have access to the road. Therefore, the rules of the Bylaw do not allow a Freestanding Sign (Sign - Class C) or a freestanding electronic panel along these frontages. Therefore, the Development Authority does not consider the allowed size for a freestanding digital sign as context. The Development Authority also notes that when freestanding, a digital message sign cannot exceed 50 percent of the overall sign area, meaning that Council intends that the business identification signage always be as large as, if not larger, than the changeable digital image CGYSDAB 107 (CanLII) 10 The Development Authority does not consider that the rationale of the size limits of third-party billboard can logically be applied to first party signage. There is an approved billboard sign along this block that has been removed prior to the expiry of its Development Permit. Based on discussions, the Development Authority believes that it was removed early because of conflict with a nearby business. The Development Authority does not want to approve a large sign with significant relaxations thus creating new conflicts. Applicant/Appellant 11 The UFCW made an application for a Class E digital sign on the side of their building located at 46 Hopewell Way NE. The proposed sign will advertise the work they do which includes work as a benevolent society. This sign will promote the business and social issues and goes further than just identifying the property. However, they will not have 3 rd party advertising displayed on the sign. 12 The sign was previously refused by the Development Authority and that refusal was upheld by the Board. However, there are now new considerations for the Board. Specifically, the neighbouring property, a Holiday Inn, had a digital sign at the time of the previous application; however, this sign has since been taken down. Additionally, there have been changes to the Bylaw since the last application which removed the sign separation rules and now allow for one digital sign per parcel. 13 The only issue now for the Board to consider is the size of the sign. If the applicant were to follow the bylaws which provide a maximum size for a Class E sign as 5.0 square metres, the sign would be too small to be legible to motorists given the context of the property and its distance from the intended target of westbound Barlow Trail traffic. Page 3 of 7 ISC: Unrestricted

58 FILE NO. DP APPEAL NO. SDAB The applicant/appellant submitted that esthetically, it would be more desirable for the sign to be on the building instead of elsewhere on the property. The building was designed to accommodate a sign. The plans show that no windows were built on one corner of the building in order to accommodate a sign. The display was always considered part of the development but the applicant/applicant was unaware that they needed a separate permit for the sign. 15 The property has land use of C-COR3. The maximum size for a Class G third party digital advertising sign is 25.0 square metres. Therefore, if the application was for a Class G sign, the sign would not require a relaxation for size. 16 The applicant/appellant showed photos of McKnight Boulevard showing minimal sign presence in the general area of the proposed development. Signs on other buildings are largely fascia signs which advertise the businesses in those respective buildings CGYSDAB 107 (CanLII) 17 Additionally, the applicant/appellant presented photos showing the location of the subject building and the proposed signs. One photo was electronically enhanced to show the proposed location and size of the sign. The applicant/appellant also proposed a slightly smaller sign for the Board to consider: 17.9 square metres, which is a 28 percent reduction in size from the original proposal. 18 The bylaw permits messages of a minimum of six seconds in length; however, the applicant/appellant is willing to accept a condition to increase the message length time to 30 seconds so that drivers will only see one message as they drive past. Additionally, they will only keep the sign illuminated between 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. This provision is typically applied in residential areas, but they are willing to accept this condition even though the area is industrial in nature. 19 The applicant/appellant acknowledged that if approved, the sign would still be reviewed every three years and they would have to reapply to the City at such time. 20 The proposed sign will not affect the use or enjoyment of neighbouring properties and they are not aware of any other concerns. There are no comparable signs on other buildings in the area, and the applicant/appellant presented no other examples pf similar relaxations. Typically these signs are freestanding on a pole closer to the road, as was the case on the neighbouring property. 21 The applicant/appellant confirmed that, despite the appearances in the pictures, they are presented to scale. The applicant/appellant stated that the sign at the neighbouring property was removed for two reasons. First, the original agreement expired after three years and the Holiday Inn wanted to support their sign application to avoid conflict. Second, a garbage enclosure and trees obstructed the sign. Therefore it was removed. Page 4 of 7 ISC: Unrestricted

59 FILE NO. DP APPEAL NO. SDAB Reasons: 22 According to the Development Authority, the application requires the following relaxation of the Bylaw: Pursuant to section 104(6), the maximum sign area is 5.0 square metres. The proposed sign area is square metres which requires a relaxation of metres. 23 The applicant/appellant in their presentation before the Board offered to reduce the sign size to 17.9 square metres, thus reducing the size relaxation. 24 The Board accepts the evidence of the appellant as to the nature of the sign, that it is to be used to promote social justice causes as the UFCW is a benevolent society in addition to a union, and the evidence of the sign position and how it is to be integrated into the façade of the building. For example, the owner s representative indicated that the sign might promote the Walk for the Cure program with respect to breast cancer CGYSDAB 107 (CanLII) 25 In its reasons for refusal, the Development Authority identified the sign as a Class E digital message sign. However, based on the evidence before the Board, the Board finds that the proposed sign is more akin to the definition of a Class G digital third party advertising sign. The Board notes the definition in the Bylaw of third party advertising is broader than just offering products for sale, and includes displaying copy directing attention to a business, commodity, service or entertainment that is conducted, sold or offered elsewhere than on the site where the sign is located. The description of the types of items proposed to be displayed on this sign, even though nothing is being offered for sale, still includes directing attention to a service offered elsewhere than on the site where the sign is located. 26 The appellant submitted that if this development were a Class G -digital third party advertising sign, there would be no relaxation with respect to size. However, there would be other relaxations that would have to be taken into account by the Board. The height of the sign to the bottom is 11.8 metres and to the top is 15.1 metres and these heights exceed the maximum allowable 10.5 metres in height under the Bylaw. If approved, the proposed sign would require a relaxation for height. Additionally the width of the sign at 7.3 metres exceeds the maximum width allowable under the bylaw by 0.3 metres. 27 The Board is cognizant of the fact that the bylaw has recently been amended for Class E signs only to eliminate a previous required separation distance of 300 metres between digital signs. The bylaw currently allows one digital sign per parcel. The Board also notes that the digital sign on the neighbouring parcel has been removed. The Board notes that there are other signs in the area, however this is the only digital sign. The other signs tend to be fascia signs. 28 Mr. Roubekas stated that the sign is oriented to target the westbound traffic on Barlow Trail. However the Board believes that Mr. Roubekas misspoke and meant to Page 5 of 7 ISC: Unrestricted

60 FILE NO. DP APPEAL NO. SDAB advise the Board that the target audience was westbound traffic on McKnight Boulevard. Barlow Trail runs north-south, however McKnight Boulevard runs east-west, and the plans show the sign located on the east elevation of the building. This distinction becomes important as section 111 of the Bylaw prohibits third part advertising signs from being visible from Barlow Trail. The Board finds that this sign is not visible from Barlow Trail. 29 However, section 111 of the Bylaw is also important in addressing arguments of the applicant/appellant. It was pointed out to the Board that there was a minimum of signage in the general area. However, section 111(3)(m) prohibits third party advertising displaying copy visible from Barlow Trail in that area, which explains why there may be less signage in the area than there might otherwise be. 30 Regardless of the comments above regarding the characterization of the sign as being more akin to Class G, the Board finds that this proposed sign should not be allowed as its size is excessive, and the integration of a digital sign into the building is not in keeping with the pattern of development in the area. Due to its size, the sign has the potential to affect driver distraction and light pollution. The evidence presented to the Board showed the general pattern of development to be fascia signs, either attached to a building or freestanding and notes a prohibition under the Bylaw of third party advertising signs in this general area. While the Board notes that this sign does not fall within the prohibition area in the Bylaw, the Board agrees with the Development Authority that the sign is contextually out of place, and will dominate and overshadow the building and therefore is an inappropriate development CGYSDAB 107 (CanLII) 31 The applicant/appellant submitted that they were prepared to make concessions in order to receive approval, including reducing the size of the sign to 17.9 square metres, agreeing to changing transition time between messages to 30 seconds, and turning the sign off at night. The Board finds that from a planning perspective, this does not change the fact that the sign is contextually out of place and not in keeping with the pattern of development in the area. Conclusion: 32 For the reasons set out above, the appeal is denied and the decision of the Development Authority is upheld. A Development Permit shall not be issued. Stefne Madison, Vice Chair and Presiding Officer Page 6 of 7 ISC: Unrestricted

61 FILE NO. DP APPEAL NO. SDAB Issued on this 19 day of January, CGYSDAB 107 (CanLII) Page 7 of 7 ISC: Unrestricted