Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-100-98DN: PD-100-98 - ~ THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REPORT Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File # Date: Monday, August 31, 1998 Report #: PD-100-98 FILE #: PLN 8.13 Subject: AMENDMENT TO SIGN BY-LAW 97-157 APPLICANT: L.C.B.O. 2379 HIGHWAY 2, CLARINGTON CENTRE FILE NO.: PLN 8.13 Res. #G~D~1 -y77-~~ By-law # Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-100-98 be received ; 2. THAT the request to amend the Sign By-law 97-157as submitted by the L.C.B.O. be denied; 3. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. 1. BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT 1.1 On August 6, 1998, the Planning Department received an application to amend Sign By-law 97-157 submitted by the L.C.B.O. The L.C.B.O. will be opening a store at the Clarington Centre. Their amendment consists of two requests. The first being to permit two (2) illuminated wall signs on the plaza's west tower which is contiguous to the entrance of the L.C.B.O. store rather than placing a sign on the wall of the store. The second request is to allow two wall signs to be erected where one wall sign is permitted in the Sign By-law. 2. SIGN BY-LAW PROVISIONS 2.1 The Sign By-law allows each business to erect a wall sign on the wall of their - 652 REPORT NO.: PD-100-98 PAGE2 business/store. The applicant has proposed to erect their signage on the plaza's west tower. The tower cannot be considered part of the wall of the building and is not part of the store the L.C.B.O. wishes to lease. 2.2 The Sign By-law permits commercial establishments to have 1 wall sign per lot frontage. The L.C.B.O.'s proposal for 2 identification signs located on the plaza's west tower exceeds the number of signs permitted. 3. APPLICANT'S RATIONALE 3.1 The applicant has provided two reasons why the Sign By-law should be amended to permit their proposed signage. The first reason is that the view of the store from Highway 2 is partially obscured by Loblaws. They state that to ensure the best visibility of their store from Highway 2, signage should be located on the west tower. The second reason is that at all stores throughout the province, L.C.B.O. have tried to locate their primary signage either above, or immediately adjacent to, the main entrance. 3.2 In support of their application, they state that that they are a destination store and clear visibility and easy access to the store would benefit other businesses. They also note in their correspondence (Attachment No. 5) that only one illuminated sign would be visible, unless a person is standing directly in front of the tower, then both signs would be visible. 4. STAFF COMMENTS 4.1 Staff are not in support of the proposed changes to the Sign By-law. We advised the b53 REPORT NO.: PD-100-98 PAGE3 L.C.B.O. of Staff's position prior to their submission of the application to amend the Sign By-law. 4.2 The Sign By-law permits one wall sign per frontage. The number of signs are limited by the Sign By-law in order to reduce clutter and to allow the architectural features of the building to stand out. Limiting the number of signs also ensures that signage is not the prominent feature of a building. 4.3 The tower cannot be considered part of the building's wall and as such cannot be considered part of any unit or store front within the plaza. If the tower is not part of a wall, then a wall sign cannot be erected on the tower. We do not see any rationale to allow L.C.B.O. to use the tower for signage whereas other tenants such as Jumbo Video or HOV have not been given permission to use the tower for signage. 4.4 The plaza has two towers. They are the dominant architectural features of the plaza providing attractiveness and integrity to the building and therefore should not be masked by signs. When the "Central Area Plan" was before Staff, we did an extensive review with the goal of ensuring an architecturally pleasing development. The towers are focal points of the plaza and are ornamental features never intended to be covered by signage. We are of the opinion that the architectural integrity of the building should not be compromised. 4.5 Staff did an extensive site visit to examine views to the unit and to the area where a sign can be placed on the wall of the unit in compliance with the Sign By-law. Staff do not agree with the L.C.B.O.'s claim that visibility to the unit is limited. Staff found that an identification sign placed on the easterly end of the unit wall would be visible from many locations (Attachment No. 4). The only locations where the sign would not be visible is if one is travelling along the aisle which directly abuts the plaza, and 654 REPORT NO.: PD-100-98 PAGE4 the aisle which directly abuts the Loblaws Plaza. The sign would be visible on the main aisle within the parking area and to the traffic travelling west along Highway 2. It would also be visible to traffic travelling on Clarington Boulevard adjacent to the Cinemas. Traffic travelling east on Highway 2 will also has limited visibility of the sign. 4.6 It is noted that L.C.B.O. has other opportunities for signage. They have proposed signage on the west side of their unit to identify the store to all traffic travelling along Green Road and entering the shopping centre from the Green Road entrance. They also plan to have illuminated canopy signage along the frontage of the unit. A permit for these signs can be readily issued when an application is made. In addition, the pylon sign for Clarington Centre which is presently erected along the Centre's Highway 2 frontage has 8 blank panels. The L.C.B.O. may be able to utilize this signage if they make the appropriate arrangements with the owner of Clarington Centre. 4.7 For Committee and Council's information, Goulds Signs has on behalf of Cambridge Leaseholds Ltd., owner of the subject plaza, submitted an application on August 14`h, 1998 for L.C.B.O. signage. They do not propose signage on the towers, instead they propose signage on the front wall adjacent to the tower. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 Staff cannot support the request by the applicant to locate the signs on the tower as it would compromise the architectural integrity of the building. Staff believe that 2 wall signs located on the unit's north elevation are not warranted. We respect L.C.B.O.'s request to place the signage on the tower to improve visibility. However we are not prepared to support this request which we believe would compromise the aesthetic qualities and attractiveness of the existing development. 655 REPORT NO.: PD-100-98 PAGE5 Respectfully submitted, ;~~~-~~~ Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Director of Planning & Development HB*FW*cc 14 August 1998 Attachment No. 1 - Key Map Attachment No. 2 - Proposed Signage Attachment No. 3 - Site Sketch Attachment No. 4 - Sight-line Sketch Attachment No. 5 - Applicant's letter Reviewed by, W.H. Stockwell, Chief Administrative Officer. Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision: LCBO Phil Gilles 1 Yonge Street Suite 1700 Toronto, Ontario M5E 1 E5 - 656 ATTACHMENT ~1 GREEN P,GAD ~~ ®-~ Q~~'~r-~-~ - i - _ - - - - _- _ ~ , r ~ © a ~I e B ~; I --------- -~ ~ r ~- ~ F ~~e ~ 6 8 i ~, r ~~ ~ • j OCO 'z '' i\ ~ "~ ~ c ~ ~-- - - - - - r '~ ~ c ~ G~ i m (~,y~ ~ ~m ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ - ---~- - ~~ m a LCBO a - - _ _ J ~ ~,~ ~ i Z ddi, ~ P ~~ m(~d6 ~\ ~' g N ~ I m i ';! ~q i i 1 ~~ i i N m r r m I I I~TTT I TTT; =VI uvrooox c~~cs ~ ~,, g ~ I~ 1 ____ _... __ _ n a s~ c __J c~~ I rf'v+~,-~--- --- 1 ~i z ~ a m ~ ~ ~ r .. A 6 ~H~ ~~ ~_ ~ y -~ C ~- r~i S Tp ~~ i}y_ y y ~ tl w ~ ~ ~ m / _ l i .,._ _ r . STREET 'D'~~,~~ (FUTURE) 'L7 III ~~ ICI ({7~ ~ i~'_ li i i ~ ~ ~4~~ __ i ~ ~ m ~, ~ ~~ m c- _~ ~ m ~ __ UPI ~~~~'i ~~!~ '~ ~'~ u n ,iii iii~~ii ~~~~ii ii n ~ ®~ ~ , ~~ ~ 1' N ~ I~ ATTACHMENT ~2 'I~Z O - `° ~TJ - F ~ a$ ~ S ~~ D • O~ ~ m '~ ~ o r ~ ~ Z i. Z ~' C C~ m D 6° -~ _° ~° Z ~ - - m - - - ~--{ o ~~ ~-- ~i~ iii iii !i i i i i `e c-~ m' k~"J' D ~ Z ~,~ -° ,~ ~, - - z Z µ ~ ~. x o_ I m~~~~ N ~' C ~ZA I Q A p p ~ y 0- m0 ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x m 11 ~ m0 r = ~ 0 r ti ~ ~ <w C i z m O L Q ~ ~ ~ A O ~ n z O O ~ ~ m w r A U ~, ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ A O 1 ~ ~ v ~ O m W^~~10 ~ aZQ, O -IZy (' G1 ~~ _ ~ p W© ~ Z ~ ~] N ~ .mr. r.m ._5. .3._5. ._0_ a I -__ ~~ o I 1~ „~ uoo • I ATTACHMENT ;~~ ~ e ~ ~. ____~__ ag ', ~~ i ~]] a 1 L~ppS C.J i ~3X 02~ ~~~p~f - `LJ I~~ ~ - ~/ ICJ. ~~ o -4~~~ - ~- ^ - - ~a ~~ ~~ ~~ r~~ ~ ~J. ~aa - ~ ~, I • f W C.J. N _C ~`, „ ~ r - p a ___ I C.J --1-i C - -I ® O A C/ Z -_-_ _ _ F ~, l 7 ea r'' ~~ s m ~~ c.J. €m~ I o ~- ', Z R ag~a~ i~ ~~ V J _-~~___ 6100 ATTACHMENT N4 GREEN ROAD - ~`~-"J ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ I ms~ ~ ~ n - n ~- ~ _ / e~ z~m yp9 ~Z~ ~,~ ~ ' zo~ ~i c LCBO ws~ ~ ~ Z~$ ~ °g __N ~ I~mZ -_ 1 O m i T A i ~ i i i m -.a_. c i a i -_ _ ~~i {, ~~ I~ ~ ~~ IL` N m r r m 4j ! n ~_ ~ i j -- l ~ z r j -i . ~ ~ ~ O Vl m ('1 fp ` omc~ ~" ~ 6~~ N ~ i 9- C C m C Z~ mvi~ o~ s ~ m ~ m Z - N 6 m r O W D (n c N m ~ ~ ~ y _~ i = ~ ~ _ ~ ,- --- STREET 'D'~ ~~ (FUTURE) ~ ~~ ~ . 3 i I€ ~ I= 1 ~~ ~~~~ ~~ H I E \ ~mCi m M ~ ~~ ~-~, % Y~~ m a -STR~ s i- ~~ _ I ~: ~-{ m r •f5 a __._._~ 9 m tl x .,~ • v~ a ,~ ti ~ 1 om z Z--~-''r d G_°' -- -- 2 ~®~ i ~ ~ B' r ~ - ~ ~~ t f per - ~ ~; X00 ~~0 ATTACHMENT 85 ~u~~~~~~ • i Yonge street )uly 9, t99B qth Floor Toronto, Ontario M5E iE5 Tet:4~asa4-e~e~ Planning and Development Department Fa.q~eab4-eab: Municipality ofClarington 4o Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario LtC 3A6 Attn: Ms. Heather Brooks RE: SIGNAGE, UNIT z3z, z379 HIGHWAY *'z, BOWMANVILLE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO SIGN BY-LAW Dear Ms. Brooks, by~y.: AU6 0 6 i3~8 Attached, please find our completed 'Application to Amend Sign By-law' form along with enclosures, with reference to our Store "z63, located at Unit z3z, 2379 Highway ~z, Bowmanville. I also enclose a cheque for 550. which I understand is the required filing fee For this application. The issues we would like to address by way of the proposed Amendment are those of: i. The location of our signage on the North Elevation of the store (on the tower), and z. Our desire to erect two signs on this elevation rather than the one stipulated in your by-law. We are requesting the installation of two signs on the tower for the following reasons: . • At all of our stores across the Province, we always try to locate our primary signage above, or immediately adjacent to, the entrance (see Drawing "i); and At this store, because of the location of the adjacent building (see site plan Drawing "z), we feel it important to position our primary signage at the West End of the North elevation in order to be visible to our customers. The further the sign is moved east. the more the adjacent building will block it- (Please note our signage as presently approved by your officials on Drawing "3J We hope that Planning Committee will be able to accommodate our request. So doing will not result in our having excessive signage on our store. In fact, our total sign area would not exceed the area allowed under the by-law. Also, unless a viewer is standing directly in front of the Tower, only one of the two neon displays we propose will be visible. We believe, therefore, that the spirit of your by-law's stipulation of one sign per elevation is maintained under our proposal. _z/ ~~~ • C 1 i Yonge Svee[ i7[h Floar ioronro. Ontario MSE ~E5 TeL. gi686q-678o Fax qib 864-686z CITY OF CLARINGTON APPLICATION FOR BY-LAW AMENDMENT contd. We would also respectfully remind the Committee that the LCBO store in every community is a destination store, which is sought out by the consuming public. If the consumer can easily find and access our store, it will benefit other businesses in the surrounding area. The LCBO believes that approval of our application will allow us to better serve our customers and the community at large. Yours tr g' ~~/ Philip A. Gillies Signage Coordinan c.c. Jackie Bonic, Fred Clarke, Sylvie Rioux Chris Hackett -Gould Signs ~~~