CITY OF TORONTO
URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
997058
Development Approval
Contact: Leontine Major
392-0423
January 15, 1998
To: City of Toronto Land Use Committee
Subject: 69 Bloor Street East: Request for approval of variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one undefined, illuminated non-encroaching sign on the north and west elevations of the third storey, containing animated and changeable copy (Ward 6).
Origin: Commissioner, Urban Development Services, upon referral of an application by Dominic Rotundo, 453 Chancellor Drive, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4L 5R1, on behalf of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario Inc., 69 Bloor Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 1R3 (p:\1997\ug\uds\pln\lu971374.pln) -pmw
Recommendation:
That City Council refuse Application No. 997044 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one undefined, illuminated non-encroaching sign on the north and west elevations of the third storey, containing animated and changeable copy.
Comments:
The property is located on the south side of Bloor Street East, one half block east of Yonge Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a five storey commercial building.
The applicant is requesting permission to install one undefined, illuminated non-encroaching sign on the north and west elevations of the third storey, containing animated and changeable copy. The proposed sign which has three sides has a height of 1.14 metres and an overall length of 6.55 metres, with a total area of 7.48 square metres (see Figure 2).
The proposed sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:
1. the Municipal Code prohibits the erection of signs which are not specifically permitted by the Code. The proposed undefined sign is not listed as a permitted sign; and
2. the Municipal Code prohibits signs which contain animated or changeable copy unless specifically permitted by the Code. The proposed undefined sign contains animated and changeable copy.
The first variance is caused because the proposed sign is not a sign type defined by the Municipal Code. The proposed sign would be mounted off centre on the north and west elevations of the building at the third floor level. The sign would consist of three panels, with the easternmost panel accommodating a digital clock, the centre panel accommodating the corporate logo of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the westernmost panel accommodating an electronic message display. The proposed sign projects out from the face of the building a distance of approximately 1.8 metres. If the sign was classified as a fascia sign, which is the sign type that it most closely resembles, additional variances would have to be considered, including location on the building, height above grade, projection from the building and thickness of sign.
Respecting the second variance, the sign would incorporate an electronic message display unit which would display animated copy. These sign features are not permitted in this district. In the past, I have only recommended approval of electronic message display signs in a few, very specific circumstances. They have been recommended for public theatres, stadiums and places of amusement, as well as in the Financial District and the specialty retail area at the intersection of Yonge and Dundas Streets. In these instances, the scale of the buildings and/or intensity and nature of the commercial activity made such signs acceptable. Further, in all cases the recommended signage was for exclusively or primarily first party advertising. Care has been taken with electronic message display signs in recognition of their dynamic character which heightens their visibility and their potentially negative impact on the streetscape. Applications for electronic message display signs, in circumstances other than those described above, have been recommended for refusal or the applicant has been persuaded not to apply or to select an alternative sign type. The approval of the proposed sign would set a negative precedent with city-wide implications.
There are other permitted signage types which, in my opinion, would be appropriate for this symmetrical classical style building and the applicant’s needs. The applicant has expressed no desire to discuss alternative sign types.
For the above noted reasons, I consider the requested variances to be significant and not within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code. I am therefore recommending refusal of this application.
John D. Morand
Commissioner
