Non-illuminated SV Law fascia sign, with a maximum sign face area of 7.8 square metres, located on the top (3rd) storey, left side… be approved

16:22And so staff are looking for us to confirm that refusal. And we have a delegation with us here. It's Kevin Thompson.

16:33Kevin, welcome. There's a couple pieces of correspondence as well.

16:41Kevin, so you have as a delegate up to five minutes, and I will time it for you. I won't interrupt you or give you many heads up with you, you know, near the five minute mark.

16:53I will only interrupt you if you go over the five minute mark. So don't let me do that. So you start and I will start the timer. Okay, great.

17:01Go right to you. Thank you, worship. Just wait for the presentation to be loaded up here. Start my stopwatch.

17:13Thank you, worship. And good morning members of council. My name is Kevin Thompson. I'm a partner at SV law. And we're here today to discuss our proposed sign variance application.

17:22Our proposal is for two facial signs, one on the east facade facing the handling expressway and one on the west facade facing Handling Creek Boulevard.

17:30As you can see from the two renderings here, these signs are in keeping with an opposite the two BDO signs that currently exist on the right side of the same two facades under the bylaw that was passed in 2021.

17:41There is a prohibition on more than one sign at the top story of a building with three or more stories. So if this was a two story building, just like many of the other buildings within the business park, there'd be no issue.

17:52As soon as we bump to three stories, there's a prohibition on more than one sign and that's what we're caught by BDO already has permission for two signs and we're looking to add two more to mirror and being keeping with the style and size of those two signs.

18:05There is an explicit variance process under your bylaw. And under 7.7 there are six enumerated criteria that shall be considered by staff or council on appeal.

18:15There's no dispute between us and staff that we meet B through F. There is no impact on heritage. There is no impact on residential areas. There's no negative impact on accessibility. We've complied with all prior signed bylaws.

18:27And there's been no responses from anybody opposed to this. There's only one written response from the chamber in support. None of your constituents were opposed to what we are proposing here today.

18:37So it comes down to 7.7 a which is whether the sign is compatible with urban design guidelines for building property in the surrounding area and staff correctly note that we have to look to both the commercial built form standards and policy 8.14 of your official plan in assessing whether we comply with the urban design guidelines.

18:56We have a comprehensive covering letter that sets out in detail how we conform to 8.14 of your official plan. I can come back to this in question and answer I need to move through in my five minutes to respond to the comments from staff but rest assured my submission to you we meet each and every one of these official

19:11plan policies.

19:13There are some additional guidelines as well which are not incorporated into your official plan. I've added those because we also meet those additional criteria.

19:20So just turning to the staff comments that need to respond to in the time I have left staff comment number one illuminated signs in the top story of buildings that are three or more stories and height are not permitted by the sign bylaw to maintain a non illuminated nighttime aesthetic.

19:33In addition office activity does not require nighttime way finding. So my comment in response to that is whether or not an office use requires nighttime way finding is not one of the criteria in your sign bylaw.

19:43It's a wholly irrelevant consideration when we're looking at the urban design guidelines. There's actually nothing in those urban design guidelines that discourages illumination at the third story or above.

19:53I can appreciate how we don't want to have too much illumination in the nighttime, especially near residential areas or inherited areas.

20:02That's just simply not applicable in the business park. This is the nighttime aesthetic that we're looking at in the business park. These are actually this is just south of our building.

20:10This is actually 197 hand and I'd have the address is transposed here.

20:15But you can see every single one of these buildings office use is predominantly sometimes showroom in the case of the furniture store. They are all illuminated all night long.

20:25The buildings themselves are highly illuminated. So the against the backdrop of that is what we are dealing with in this scenario.

20:33Those are actually second story signs, even though they appear to be on the third story because of the size of the parapet wall there.

20:39This is the subject property. Again, you can see the illuminated video sign in our proposed signage on the hand and side would be directly opposite that on the left hand corner.

20:48You can see how illuminated that site is at night that that's a site plan requirement for safety and security that that level of illumination is is on that site.

20:57And so our illuminated sign against that backdrop I would submit to would be negligible.

21:03The next comment is that the site plan drawings for our building did not show these signs again. I suggest that's a bit of a red herring site plans never show that level of detail.

21:12And I would add to that that our site plan was approved in May of 2020. This bylaw did not exist until July of 2014 months later. So it's very difficult to plan ahead for a prohibition that we did not know would be in existence.

21:25The next comment staffs concerned that precedent will be set. This is the big one and and with respect to staff. I'm concerned that if we if we get away from those six criteria in your bylaw, we lose certainty for the business community and knowing how and when a variance may be approved.

21:39The specter of a precedent being set could be used to deny any variance application.

21:44And that's just not how the bylaw is meant to be interpreted. There are six criteria. If you meet those criteria, you should have reasonable certainty that that a variance will be granted.

21:53And finally, a limited signs on the top stories are not supportable by staff because they're primarily for businesses do not operate during the nighttime hours. Again, the OP discourages roof signs. There's nothing about illumination in there.

22:06This is the surrounding streetscape. I'll just jump through. You can see the height of our sign is in keeping with those second story signs.

22:13We are in a provincially significant employment zone. And this is a business park. I would submit to you that I think five minutes is up. Thank you.

22:19Yep. No, thank you. I'm sorry to have to do that, but I'll put up the conclusions. That's my role. So yeah, thank you.

22:25Let me just see if there's any questions before it comes back to councils or any questions from council.

22:32Okay, I'm seeing.

22:34No, I'm seeing none. Thank you very much. Oh, it looks like I got one. Councillor Caron. Sorry.

22:39Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know it's hard between the screens and the horseshoe. Thank you for the delegation. Very helpful information, especially the visuals.

22:48Other than for marketing purposes, your illumination at night illustrations in your presentation were very illuminating. Excuse the pun.

22:59What is the purpose of nighttime illumination? Why are you asking for nighttime illumination? I mean, other than for marketing and visibility?

23:09Is there a practical purpose that is outside of those purposes?

23:15Thank you. Through the chair to council. That is the primary purpose. You're absolutely correct that what we're looking for is brand recognition.

23:22There are 30,000 cars a day that drive along the Hanlon. It's imperative for a business of our size.

23:28When we're making an investment like the size we just did in the Hanlon Creek business park and in this community, having that brand recognition, having that illuminated signage for that volume of traffic is critical.

23:39We have 27,000 square feet. We're the largest tenant in that building and we're in the business park. And it's just in keeping in my submission with the surrounding streetscape within that business park that every business has that nighttime illumination.

23:55It's not for wayfinding. We don't need that illumination. None of those businesses need that. But both all do respect to staff.

24:02There's no policy in the official plan that speaks to the requirement for nighttime wayfinding as a precondition to having that illuminated signage. So thank you for the question.

24:11I would suggest that the criteria don't speak to whether or not we need that nighttime illumination as a factor to be considered.

24:20Okay. Thank you. And Gibson. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for coming to council today. You touched on it, but it was very quickly. So hope you can slow it down for me a little bit.

24:32Second story illuminated lights permissible. Third story, not permissible. Is that correct? Yes or no?

24:40Yes. Thank you. Through them. Sure. To council Gibson. Yes. That is correct. So, and then you touched on your relative height of your building compared to the other.

24:49Quite frankly, the two stories that look pretty tall. Can you give us a sort of a distance from the ground of where your sign would be compared to the to those other two story buildings? I'm just trying to sound seems to be pretty comparable in terms of sight lines.

25:03Thank you through the chair to councillor Gibson. Our signs will be 11.4 meters off of ground. I don't have an exact number for the 197 and 195 Hanlon Creek. They're about 10 meters.

25:14So we are slightly higher. But visually when you're looking from the hand that are from the creek, you our eyes can't necessarily see that difference.

25:21I agree. So I guess the conundrum here is yours is third story whereas theirs is technically the second story. Okay. Thank you.

25:30Great. Seeing nothing further. Thanks for your delegation. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

25:35Okay, it's back to us. And so I'm looking for I'm looking to see if anyone would be willing to move the staff recommendation.

25:48Seeing none. So it looks like I'll have another motion to come to the floor, which is councillor or work please.

25:56Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I circulated a motion yesterday.

26:02But I was not aware that all the other signs were illuminated. So I've modified the motion. The clerks should have just received one.

26:09And that's correct.

26:13So it reads that the SV law faces sign with a maximum sign face area of 7.8 square meters located on the top third story a left side of the building facade facing the Hanlon expressway East elevation be approved.

26:25And to that the SV law faces sign with a maximum sign face area of 7.8 square meters located on the top story a left side of the building facade facing Hanlon Creek Boulevard West elevation be approved.

26:38And I believe councillor Goller will second. And if I could just speak to it for a moment, the reason that I feel it's appropriate. It is true that when you're you're coming across layered on the overpass, the elevation is very, very similar.

26:52And if you compare to the type of signage in the adjacent building, it really is in keeping so it's not setting a precedent for other parts of the city. It just isn't keeping with what what their neighbors have.

27:03So I want to put that on the floor for my for council's consideration.

27:08Okay, thank you. It's been seconded so by Gower as you mentioned, okay, and now we're speaking only to the motions on the floor. Is there any questions? Okay, I got all to then Quran.

27:23Thank you, Mayor Guthrie through you to staff. I'm somewhat ambivalent on this one I have to admit and I was wondering if staff could please reiterate their concerns.

27:32I've heard some comments about climate change about light pollution. I know that we're very concerned about race to zero. I'm also concerned about pressing light pollution. So I think I need to hear it from staff.

27:45What are the issues that we believe could be challenges for us moving forward with other areas of the city or perhaps other similar signs.

27:56Through the mayor to council.

27:58So, yes, when the sign ball was amended in 2021, there was a holistic change and taking a look at what we wanted our city to look like visually from the signage perspective.

28:07Certainly the number of signs that were permitted on a building was looked at and absolutely in illumination was looked at.

28:13We are trying to go race to zero and trying to do those targets and that not only the city's, you know, 3% of the pie has to do something, but the community as well.

28:21And as a result in the sign by law, the illumination was removed from from these.

28:27You know, if it was a hospital, we get it, you're trying to find get there at night.

28:31But a law office, perhaps not, not so much and a signage to be illuminated in our opinion is not required and goes against some of the other policies that we're trying to achieve as a city.

28:43And Karan, please.

28:46Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you to Castro work for the alternate.

28:52Motion I was going to support the first clause regarding the third story signage for all the reasons that have already been expressed.

29:01The illumination for me was the key one that I was sitting on. And I believe in the discussions on the third story that the other major reason was migratory birds that birds flying at a certain height.

29:16Light is interrupts their migratory patterns. And I just sent an article via email to my colleagues about that that height of illumination.

29:27The illustrations from the delegate for me.

29:31I spoke volumes, because I did go drive that stretch at night and I saw the level of light pollution. I had incrementally been unaware of how much illumination is facing our our handlin expressway from the business part.

29:5045 illuminated signs doesn't make it. Okay.

29:55You know, 45 wrongs doesn't make a right.

29:59We've got a light pollution problem. And even 1st and 2nd stories are contributing to that problem.

30:07The delegate, while I respect our local business. Absolutely. This is an excellent local business.

30:15I've said that the market marketing is the primary reason for the illuminated signs at night, but that's not Council's role. Council's role is not to provide the billboard for marketing along the handlin.

30:30I think we have other considerations, aesthetics climate change, but for me it's about migratory birds and there's enough research to show that it is damaging to those populations and we are a bird friendly city.

30:44So I have to vote with those values. So I would like to put an amendment to the amendment or put an amendment to the motion to reinsert the words non illuminated to counselor or works motion, which is the original wording that was circulated via email.

31:03I need to see if there's a second or 1st.

31:06And their counselor all 2nd.

31:10Okay, we're speaking now only to the amendment. Does anyone need questions on that? I really think it's quite clear everybody.

31:18Okay, so how would I call the vote?

31:21Oh, Councillor work to do you have to question this or can I call the vote?

31:26Well, I just had a question with relationship to how we define stories in the handlin business park because I've asked this question before right there's a 3 story maximum.

31:36In certain parts of the handlin business park, but the height of the story is not defined.

31:42So it's an important consideration when we say you can on a 2 story, but you can on a 3 story, but we don't define the heights because based on if it's a warehouse height, it'll be higher, etc.

31:54So just for the.

31:56You know, just in terms of fairness and just to be sure we're understanding the difference between a 2nd story and a 3rd story and whether it should be illuminated or not.

32:05There's a lot of gray in that area in the handlin business park. So I'm just wondering if staff want to comment on, is there a definition? Is there a height to a story in the handlin business park?

32:16Through the mayor to Councillor or Rourke a story is defined as a floor. So there isn't actually a height tied to it.

32:28So, yes, the warehouses, they are taller with 1 or 2 stories, whereas a office building.

32:37Generally could be have the same height as a 2 story warehouse, a 3 story office building.

32:45So, through you, I just offer that for consideration so people are aware that the.

32:49It's not as clear as in a residential area.

32:54Councillor, thank you. Mayor Guthrie hearing from from Councillor O'Rourke. I think that there's 2 issues here. 1 is the principle of the sign and whether the sign should be there and illuminated.

33:08The other is a question of policy, which I think I just heard that we need to go back and review our definition of a story and tight in with regards to signs.

33:18I don't want to really want to deal with that one in terms of a singular sign. I think the decision in front of us right now is whether this sign should be approved or not.

33:27So, I think the issue is 1 that I'd suggest has to go back for careful consideration because especially with bill 23 coming in, if we don't define certain certain height standards, we could be challenged throughout the city on on some of these issues.

33:46So, that makes sense.

33:49I mean, I think the word 3 goes beyond say they conventional 8 to 10 feet, but is actually the height of the of a Walmart warehouse.

34:05Okay.

34:06I'd like to, oh, I'm sorry. Councillor Caron the mover of the amendment. Go ahead.

34:11our sign by law, not our sign by law, our light by law. It's my understanding that we do have an upcoming review of

34:19light pollution in the city as a whole,

34:22not just signage, but in our efforts to become a bird-friendly city,

34:28turning off lighting in vacant office buildings at night during spring and fall migration,

34:34the searchlight that's happening downtown that's interrupting migration patterns.

34:40When is that taking place and perhaps this discussion is better left there?

34:45Because we have a bigger problem than just this sign and I don't want our bigger problem to weigh down this discussion.

34:56Through the chair, I've asked General Manager Doug Godfrey to come down and respond to that.

35:00Thanks, Doug.

35:04Through the chair to Councillor Caron, we have started that light trespass review.

35:11It will be conducted this year and we hope to report back to council early next.

35:20Okay, thanks.

35:21So,

35:24I'm trying to find a middle ground here, Mr. Mayor.

35:27I'm okay with an illuminated sign

35:32outside of the spring and fall migration.

35:34And I'm

35:37just trying to craft in my head how we do that weather.

35:41Actually, you know what?

35:42Let's keep the amendment as is non-illuminated and we can talk later about

35:48partial illumination during the light trespass review.

35:53That may mean that SB law goes ahead and installs an illuminated sign, but just

36:00keeps it turned off until we can have a more fulsome review of the impact that it has.

36:08And we'll leave it to the bylaw review.

36:13Okay.

36:15All right.

36:15Thank you, everybody.

36:16I'm going to call the vote on this amendment to have it as non-illuminated.

36:20I will not be supporting this amendment at all.

36:23Okay.

36:24So all in favour of the amendment.

36:29Three, Karan,

36:32Katen and Alt.

36:33So that amendment fails.

36:35We're back to the main motion.

36:38And can I look to call the vote on that?

36:40Looks like I can.

36:42So I will do that.

36:45All in favour of the main motion to approve.

36:48Sorry.

36:49Yeah, fine.

36:49Show hands too late now.

36:51All in favour of that.

36:53Let me see the hands.

36:56Okay, it's unanimous.

36:59Thank you.

37:01Thank you to our delegation.

37:02I do have a follow up question on this matter just for curiosity sake.

37:08Is this something that staff is looking at?

37:14Or something like this in the future to never come back to us?

37:25Through the mayor.

37:25So the signed bylaw that was brought forward in 2021, if staff recommends

37:30refusal of an application, there's the option to come to council.

37:35I understand that.

37:36But in a could we could we in the future, like maybe discuss on how

37:43such a process like this for something like this in a business park

37:47could be amended?

37:49Because to me this to me personally, I just doesn't seem like this really

37:54needed to get to this point in a process.

37:57As you can see by unanimous vote of council on the subject matter, it

38:01doesn't seem relevant really for this particular site, especially in employment

38:06lands, that's something like this would have to continually trigger an appeal

38:10process to come to council.

38:13So is this something that is being considered through delegated authority

38:16or an actual change?

38:18Or is it is just the first time it's come up and because it's the first time

38:21it's not triggering anything for you to consider having to bring forward to

38:25council to change it in the future?

38:27We can take that back.

38:29Mayor Guthrie and take a look at it, but we were following the directions.

38:32Other proof signed very well.

38:33Yeah.

38:33No, no, you absolutely were absolutely.

38:37And the process did the right thing.

38:39But sometimes in processes such as this, it illuminates it.

38:44It's illuminating to see that, you know, maybe we've maybe we got something wrong.

38:49So I'll leave that for a conversation outside of this.

38:54Thank you for the follow up.

38:57OK, we're moving on to the next one.

38:59We got a couple presentations here from our staff on the sustainable