Calgary Subdivision and Development Appeal Board
P.O. Box 2100, Station M, # 8110,
Calgary, AB T2P 2M5
Email: [email protected]
CALGARY SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
Citation: 2015 CGYSDAB 075
Case Name: SDAB2015-0075 (Re)
File No: DP2015-1153
Appeal by:
Five Star Permits represented by Cy Atkinson
Appeal against:
Development Authority of The City of Calgary
Hearing date:
July 02, 2015
Decision date:
July 22, 2015
Board members:
Teresa Goldstein, Presiding Officer
Rick Grol
Dale Hodges
Michelle Pink
Robert Sipka
DECISION
FILE NO. DP2015-1153
APPEAL NO. SDAB2015-0075
Basis of appeal:
This is an appeal from a refusal by the Development Authority for a development permit
made on the application of Five Star Permits for a new: sign – class B (fascia sign)
at #300, 6520 Falconridge Boulevard NE.
Description of Application:
The appeal before the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Board) deals with a
refusal by the Development Authority of a development permit application for a new
class B fascia sign at #300, 6520 Falconridge Boulevard NE. The property is located in
the community of Taradale and has a land use designation of Commercial – Community
1 (C-C1) District.
Hearing:
The Board heard verbal submissions from Bob Sasyniuk with Selkirk Signs on behalf of
Five Star Permits, the applicant/appellant, in favour of the appeal.
Summary of Evidence:
The Board report forms part of the evidence presented to the Board. It contains the
Development Authority’s decision respecting the development permit application and
the materials submitted by the Development Authority that pertain to the application.
The Board report further contains the notice of appeal and the documents, materials or
written submissions of the appellant/applicant and any other party to the appeal.
Development Authority’s Submission
The Development Authority did not make a verbal presentation to the Board. Prior to
the hearing, the Development Authority, in response to the appeal, referred to the
reasons for refusal.
Appellant’s/Applicant’s Submission
The applicant submitted the following reasons in their notice of appeal and written
submissions in support of the appeal: a) The existing illuminated sign is brighter than
the proposed new sign will be. This is due to new lighting technology; b) There are
three other existing illuminated signs on the same wall. They are not going to be
removed; c) The residential area is over 60 metres (197’) away from the sign. The sign
and the residences are separated by four lanes of traffic, and street lighting on both
sides of the street; and d) If the new “Co-op” illuminated is not allowed, the remaining
Page 2 of 9
ISC: Unrestricted
FILE NO. DP2015-1153
APPEAL NO. SDAB2015-0075
signs of “Wine” “Spirits” and “Beer” will still be illuminated and cause the “Co-op” brand
sign to be much less effective by comparison.
Mr. Sadyniuk, with Selkirk Signs on behalf of Five Star Permits, the appellant/applicant
on behalf of the landowner Co-Op Calgary, submitted a presentation, drawings and
photographs of the proposed sign development. He elaborated on the sign further and
stated that the majority of the illumination was lit through the sides of the proposed sign,
not the front. He explained to the Board that because of the illumination by LED
modules the proposed sign would be less bright than the existing sign and the
illuminated area surrounding the sign would be smaller. He further explained the
context of the area and that three other signs are currently present on the same
elevation as the proposed sign.
Upon Board questioning, Mr. Sadyniuk confirmed that the proposed sign would be
installed in the exact same location as the existing one. Further he stated that there are
currently 10 fascia signs on the existing building, which were approved with the original
development permit. That through rebranding, Co-op Calgary wishes to replace two of
the original signs, one on the north and one on the south elevation. He also pointed out
that the Development Authority has approved the new sign on the north elevation, but
refused the one on the south. The appellant’s representative further confirmed that
there was three free standing identification signs located on the east side which have
already been replaced due to rebranding; and pointed this out on the viewgraph to the
Board. He further elaborated that there was no size difference between the existing and
proposed signage and the only difference is between the side illumination of the
proposed signage, rather than directly from the front.
Affected Persons’ Submissions
No one spoke in opposition to the appeal and no letters of objection were received.
Decision:
In determining this appeal, the Board:




Complied with the provincial legislation and land use policies, applicable statutory
plans and, subject to variation by the Board, The City of Calgary Land Use Bylaw
1P2007, as amended, and all other relevant City of Calgary Bylaws;
Had regard to the subdivision and development regulations;
Considered all the relevant planning evidence presented at the hearing and the
arguments made; and
Considered the circumstances and merits of the application.
1. The appeal is allowed and the decision of the Development Authority is
overturned.
Page 3 of 9
ISC: Unrestricted
FILE NO. DP2015-1153
APPEAL NO. SDAB2015-0075
2. A development permit shall be issued with the following conditions of
approval.
Conditions of approval
Permanent conditions
The following are the permanent conditions of the permit:
1. The approval is for a new “Sign – Class B” (fascia sign) with a relaxation of
section 93(3)(a) of Land Use Bylaw 1P2007.
2. The development shall be completed in its entirety, in accordance with the
approved plans and conditions; any changes to the approved plans, including
non-completion of the development, shall be submitted for approval to the
Development Authority.
3. No changes to the approved plans shall take place unless authorized by the
Development Authority.
4. A development completion permit shall be applied for, and approval obtained,
within two months of the issuance of the permit. Call the Development Inspection
Group at 403-268-5311 to request that a Development Inspector conduct a site
inspection and sign the development completion permit.
Reasons:
1 The Board considered the written, verbal, and photographic evidence submitted, and
notes that the appeal pertains to the Development Authority’s refusal of a development
permit application for a new sign – class B (fascia sign) at #300, 6520 Falconridge
Boulevard NE. The property is located in the community of Taradale and has a land use
designation of Commercial - Community (C-C1) District pursuant to Land Use Bylaw
1P2007.
2 The Development Authority refused the application on several grounds. The reasons
for its decision are contained in the Board report on pages 5 and 6 and are as follows
[unedited]:
Application Review and Analysis
During the review, the Development Authority considered the drawings
submitted and the Land Use Bylaw. The drawings submitted with the application
show the sign on the rear façade is to be directly illuminated by white LED
Page 4 of 9
ISC: Unrestricted
FILE NO. DP2015-1153
APPEAL NO. SDAB2015-0075
modules. The Development Authority also considered the appropriateness of
the location for the proposed fascia sign.
Relaxation Analysis
This application seeks a relation for a sign to be directly illuminated by LED
modules when the copy of the sign is visible from adjacent residential parcels.
The intent of the rule of the bylaw is to prevent light trespass from signage onto
residential properties. In the opinion of the Development Authority the proposed
sign has illumination properties which are inappropriate when adjacent to and
visible from residential properties. Signage adjacent to residential development
must have regard to maintaining and protecting quality living environments for
residents.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing and the excessive relaxation noted above, the
Development Authority can find no compelling planning rationale to approve the
development permit and, accordingly, the application is refused.
3 The appellant in summary submitted that the proposed sign complies with all
applicable policies and legislation and would not have a negative impact on the
surrounding area. At the hearing he elaborated on his evidence and arguments in
favour of the application.
Application
4 The application is for one new Sign – Class B which is a permitted use in the subject
land use district. The sign will be located on the rear (south) façade of the building
which is adjacent to low density residential properties from which the sign will be visible.
5 The application requires a relaxation of section 93(3) of Land Use Bylaw 1P2007.
Section 93(3)(a) provides that a fascia sign located on a secondary building wall may
be illuminated, but must only be indirectly illuminated when the copy of the sign is
visible from an adjacent parcel designated as a residential district. According to the
Development Authority the sign is visible from the adjacent residential developments.
Legislative Framework
6 The Board has particular regard to the following sections of Land Use Bylaw 1P2007,
among others:
Section 13 states, in part:
General Definitions
13
(5)
“adjacent” means contiguous or contiguous if not for a street,
lane, river or stream.
Page 5 of 9
ISC: Unrestricted
FILE NO. DP2015-1153
APPEAL NO. SDAB2015-0075
(108.1)
“primary building wall” means any exterior building wall
that forms part of a façade that contains a public entrance
and faces, or is oriented to, a street or a parking area on the
same parcel as illustrated in Sign Illustration 2, with the
exception that corner sites facing public streets can have two
primary building walls not withstanding one façade may not
contain a public entrance.
(122.1)
“secondary building wall” means any exterior building wall
that is not a primary building wall as illustrated in Sign
Illustration 2.
Section 31 states:
Test for a Relaxation
31
The Development Authority may approve a development permit
application for a permitted use where the proposed development does
not comply with all of the applicable requirements and rules of this Bylaw
if, in the opinion of the Development Authority:
(a)
the proposed development would not unduly interfere with the
amenities of the neighbourhood or materially interfere with or
affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring properties;
and
(b)
the proposed development conforms with a use prescribed
by this Bylaw for that land or building.
Section 72(1) states:
Development Authority’s Discretion
72
(1)
Where a type of sign is listed as a permitted use in a District, but
does not comply with all of the applicable rules of this Part, the
Development Authority’s decision to relax a rule must be guided by
the:
(a)
test for a relaxation referenced in section 31;
(b)
purpose statement of this Part;
(c)
rules relating to opportunities for signage;
(d)
character of the District where the sign is proposed to be
located;
Page 6 of 9
ISC: Unrestricted
FILE NO. DP2015-1153
APPEAL NO. SDAB2015-0075
(e)
amount of signage in the nearby surroundings; and
(f)
extent to which the sign does not comply with the rule
proposed to be relaxed.
Section 93(3) states:
Rules for Fascia Signs
93
(3)
A Fascia Sign located on a secondary building wall may be
illuminated, but must only be indirectly illuminated when the copy of the
sign is visible from:
(a)
an adjacent parcel designated as a residential district; or
(b)
a Park or Natural Area.
Section 300 states:
300
“Sign – Class B”
(a)
means only the following devices intended to convey
meaning about, or draw attention to, a site, person,
business, event, product or commodity:
(i)
(b)
“Fascia Identification Sign” which means a sign
that:
(A)
indicates, by name or symbol, the occupant,
business or site upon which the sign is
displayed; and
(B)
is attached to, marked or ascribed on and is
parallel to an exterior wall of a building;
and
is a use within the Sign Group in Schedule A to this Bylaw.
Section 739 (1) (c) lists “Sign – Class B” as a permitted use in the C-C1 District.
Analysis
7 The Board acknowledges the submissions of all parties, including but not limited to
the appellant/applicant and the Development Authority regarding the application and
appeal. The Board considered all relevant evidence and relevant arguments, either in
favour of or against the appeal.
Page 7 of 9
ISC: Unrestricted
FILE NO. DP2015-1153
APPEAL NO. SDAB2015-0075
8 The subject development permit application is a permitted use development. Pursuant
to section 31 of Land Use Bylaw 1P2007, the Development Authority may approve a
development permit application for a permitted use even though it does not meet the
requirements and rules of the Bylaw and the proposed development conforms with a
use prescribe by this Bylaw for that land or building. Specifically for signs , section 72(1)
of the Bylaw states that where a type of sign is listed as a permitted use in a District, but
does not comply with all of the applicable rules of the Bylaw, the Development
Authority’s decision to relax a rule must be guided by the: (a) test for a relaxation
referenced in section 31; (b) purpose statement of Part 3 of the Bylaw; (c) rules relating
to opportunities for signage; (d) character of the District where the sign is proposed to
be located; (e) amount of signage in the nearby surroundings; and (f) extent to which
the sign does not comply with the rule proposed to be relaxed.
9 The Board reviewed the context of the proposed development and required relaxation,
and having regard to sound planning considerations, the merits of the application and
circumstances of the case, and the evidence presented.
10 The Board notes that the Development Authority did not appear at the hearing and
did not provide contrary evidence in response to the appellant’s arguments and
evidence presented at the hearing.
11 At the hearing, the appellant presented the proposed new sign and provided an
explanation to the Board regarding the overall lighting expected to be generated by the
new sign. The appellant explained that the new sign would actually generate less offsite lighting than the current sign as a result of being side lit, rather than front lit. The
Board found this explanation satisfactory and felt it provided further justification towards
the proposed relaxation.
12 The Board accepts the evidence of the appellant that the proposed signage is
required to rebrand the business and would not further contribute to additional offsite or
adjacent impacts on the residential properties to the south. The Board, based on the
evidence, finds that it is very similar to the existing fascia sign and produces less light.
This provides the necessary considerations when adjacent to residential development
as per section 93(3)(a) of the Land Use Bylaw.
13 Furthermore the proposed sign is a fascia sign which purpose is to identify the
business. The Board finds it significant that the proposed sign does not require any
other Bylaw relaxations than section 93(3)(a) and is a permitted use development. In
term of size it complies with the Land Use Bylaw.
14 With respect to the scale of the relaxation, the Board finds that the impact of the sign
and associated lighting is very limited. The Board accepts the appellant’s evidence that
illumination and brightness of the proposed sign by LED modules is less bright than the
illumination of the previous sign. The Board also finds that the potential for residential
interference would be minimal. By reducing the existing sign lighting, the Board finds
that the impact of the sign on the immediate area is significantly reduced.
Page 8 of 9
ISC: Unrestricted
FILE NO. DP2015-1153
APPEAL NO. SDAB2015-0075
15 The Board, based on the evidence and aforementioned factors, therefore finds that
the sign has no negative impact on the adjacent residential developments and
immediate area. Therefore, the required relaxation for the sign meets the criteria of
section 687(3)(d) of the Municipal Government Act.
16 Accordingly, the Board finds that the required relaxation of section 93(3)(a) of Land
Use Bylaw 1P2007 for the requirement of indirectly illuminating a sign where it is visible
from and adjacent residential parcel would not unduly interfere with the amenities of the
neighbourhood, or materially interfere with or affect the use or enjoyment of
neighbouring residential parcels of land.
17 Having regard to the merits of the application, the Board, based on the evidence and
aforementioned factors, finds that the subject sign does not conflict with the adjacent
residential developments.
18 In reviewing and weighing all the evidence, the Board therefore finds that the
proposed development in this instance warrants approval.
Conclusion
19 For the above reasons the Board allows the appeal and overturns the decision of the
Development Authority.
20 A development permit shall be issued with the above listed conditions of approval.
___________________________________
Teresa Goldstein, Presiding Officer
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board
Issued on this 22nd day of July 2015
Page 9 of 9
ISC: Unrestricted