CITY OF TORONTO
URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
997039
Development Approval
Contact: Lora Mazzocca
392-0421
January 15, 1998
To: Toronto Community Council
Subject: 511 Queen Street West: Request for approval of variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated projecting sign (Ward 24).
Origin: Commissioner, Urban Development Services, upon referral of an application by 555726 Ontario Inc., 511 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5V 2B4, on behalf of 498330 Ontario Limited, 89 Ridge Hill Drive, Toronto, Ontario, M6C 2J7. (p:\1997\ug\uds\pln\lu971496.pln) - jc
Recommendations:
1. That City Council approve Application No. 997039 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated projecting sign.
2. That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 997039, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.
Comments:
The property is located on the south side of Queen Street West, between Augusta Avenue and Spadina Avenue, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a 2.5 storey mixed-use building with residential units on the upper storey and retail uses at grade.
The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated projecting sign on the north elevation of the building (see Figures 1 and 2). The sign has a length of 2.4 metres and a height of 1.6 metres, with an area of 4.0 m².
The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:
- the area of the sign (4.0 m²) exceeds the maximum permitted area of 1.2 m² by 2.8 m²;
- the sign is located within 10 metres from a residential use;
- the sign projects 2.7 metres over a public walkway instead of the permitted 1.0 metre; and
- the sign is located within 0.6 metres from the curb line of a public roadway.
The first variance occurs because the sign is larger than permitted by the Municipal Code. The maximum area for projecting signs is based upon the amount of frontage the unit has on the street. I was concerned about the impact of such a large sign on the streetscape and requested the applicant to reduce the overall size of the existing sign. The applicant has advised that the bottom portion of the sign is detachable and that he would remove it, thereby reducing the size of the sign from 4m² to 3.0m². Although the sign would still be substantially larger than permitted, the modified sign would be more in keeping with other signs along this section of Queen Street, which I consider acceptable.
The second variance occurs because the sign is located within 10 metres of a residential window. In this case, however, the sign has been installed well below the window level and would not adversely affect the tenant’s enjoyment of this unit.
The last two variances occur because the sign projects 1.7 metres further than permitted by the Municipal Code and is located within 0.6 metres from the curb line of a public roadway. A recent site visit has confirmed that the sign cannot be moved any closer to the building. The applicant has advised that the sign was installed approximately 18 years ago and was refaced within the last 5 years.
Given that the revised proposal represents a modest improvement over the original proposal and that the sign is located well above grade and does not interfere with pedestrians, I am prepared to support the requested variances in this circumstance. I am, therefore, recommending that this application be approved.
John Morand
Commissioner
