May 7, 1999
To:Toronto Community Council
From:Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services
Subject:Proposal by the Toronto Parking Authority to replace existing illuminated pedestal signs with new illuminated
ground signs on 13 parking lots in the former City of Toronto (Wards 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26).
Purpose:
The Toronto Parking Authority has requested permission to replace 17 existing pedestal signs located in 13 parking lots in
the former City of Toronto. The proposed replacement signs will contain both third party advertising as well as the Parking
Authority's "P" symbol and rates information.
All 17 of the proposed replacement signs require City Council's approval for two reasons:
(i)Third party ground and pedestal signs have been prohibited in the former City's mixed-use commercial/residential and
reinvestment area districts since 1996; and
(ii)The replacement of these legal non-conforming signs is not permitted under the former City's sign by-law.
Summary of Recommendations:
Each proposed location was carefully evaluated against the objectives of the sign by-law. This report recommends approval
of 12 of the 17 proposed ground signs (see Table 1 attached). These are all situations where the replacement signs will
improve sight lines, reduce visual clutter and reduce the amount of third party signage involved.
This report also recommends refusal of 5 of the 17 proposed ground signs. For 3 of these 5 refusals, the rejected
replacement sign is one of two such signs proposed to be replaced on the same street frontage of the respective Parking
Authority Lot. For the other 2 of the 5 recommended refusal ground signs, each Parking Authority Lot already contains a
large ("billboard") ground sign in addition to the pedestal sign which would be replaced.
The sign by-law attempts to balance urban design objectives with the demands for advertising opportunities. There is a
point where we should draw the line at what comprises "visual clutter" that does not enhance the City's commercial
streetscapes. Permitting one replacement sign per Parking Authority Lot street frontage is, in my opinion, a reasonable
compromise.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
1. City Council approve the following applications respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City
of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit all 8 requested illuminated ground signs, as listed below:
Application 999022400 Keele StreetWard 19:1 replacement sign
Application 9990231325 Queen St.W. Ward 19:1 replacement sign
Application 999024 16 Ossington Av.Ward 20: 1 replacement sign
Application 99902625 Dundas St. E.Ward 24:1 replacement sign
Application 999028111 Richmond St. E. Ward 25:1 replacement sign
Application 999029 323 Richmond St. E.Ward 25:1 replacement sign
Application 999032573 Gerrard Street E.Ward 25:1 replacement sign
Application 999033716 Pape AvenueWard 25:1 replacement sign
all on condition that:
(i)the 8 existing pedestal signs be removed; and
(ii)the Accessibility Guidelines be implemented by providing a cane detectable barrier around the replacement signs to be
located at 16 Ossington Avenue, 25 Dundas Street East, and 323 Richmond Street East, as illustrated on Figures C, F and I
attached.
2. City Council approve, in part, the following applications respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the
former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit 4 of the 7 requested illuminated ground signs:
Application 99902545 Bay St. & YongeWard 242 of 3 replacement signs
Application 9990271 Church St.Ward 241 of 2 replacement signs
Application 999031111 Broadview Av.Ward 251 of 2 replacement signs
all on condition that:
(i)the 4 replacement signs be located as illustrated on Figures E-1 & E-2, G, and J and; and
(ii) the 7 existing pedestal signs be removed.
3City Council refuse the following applications respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of
Toronto Municipal Code, thereby rejecting the request to replace one illuminated ground sign in addition to an existing
non-conforming ground sign:
Application 999030730 Mount PleasantWard 22
Application 9990341612 Danforth Ave.Ward 26
4. The applicant be advised upon approval of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services.
Background:
On July 7, 1998 the Toronto Parking Authority issued a Request For Proposals to the outdoor advertising industry for a new
"pillar" (pedestal) license agreement for 13 parking lot locations in the former City of Toronto. The Toronto Parking
Authority felt that it could generate greater revenue potential if the signs were submitted to a competitive bid through a
tender process.
The tender was awarded to Mediacom Inc. for its proposal of a "mediacolumn". As shown on the attached Figure 2, this
sign has a cantilever base, with curved surfaces which form a triangular plan-view. There is a reduction in the number of
advertising faces from four to two, so that only one advertisement is visible from any viewing position.
Mediacom representatives argue that the new sign is an aesthetic improvement over the existing square design in that it
results in a 50% reduction of the advertising display area. If all 17 proposed replacement signs are approved, the Toronto
Parking Authority stands to gain a net increase of 38% more revenue annually from these locations.
The Toronto Parking Authority intends to eventually install the selected design at all Toronto Parking Authority lots
throughout the City. The existing agreements with Pattison Outdoor Advertising (for the 17 pedestal signs which are
proposed to be replaced) expired on May 30, 1998 and are currently being renewed on a month-to-month basis.
Separate applications have been made to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for minor
variance approval because third party ground and pedestal signs have been prohibited in the former City's mixed-use
commercial/residential and reinvestment area districts since 1996 and the replacement of these legal non-conforming signs
is not permitted under the City's sign by-law.
Legal non-conforming signs are permitted to remain in their existing locations provided there are no changes to the sign
structure, location or height. In this instance, however, the applicant proposes to remove the existing pedestal signs and
install new ground signs in the same location.
Buildings Division staff have classified this design as a "ground sign". This classification is a "technical" one, made
because the sign is supported by a single, internal structural-steel column attached to a concrete base. In reality, the new
design more closely matches the height and width requirements of a pedestal sign.
Comments:
The intent of the regulations in this category is to reduce sign proliferation along our City's main streets, to ensure that,
where possible, an open, uncluttered view corridor is maintained and that sight lines for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians
are improved.
Each of the 13 Toronto Parking Authority lots is the subject of a separate application. My comments on these applications
are divided into three groups, depending on whether my recommendation is for approval, approval in part, or refusal.
- Recommendation to approve 8 applications involving a total of 8 replacement signs
Application 999022400 Keele StreetWard 19:1 replacement sign
Application 9990231325 Queen St.W. Ward 19:1 replacement sign
Application 999024 16 Ossington Av.Ward 20: 1 replacement sign
Application 99902625 Dundas St. E.Ward 24:1 replacement sign
Application 999028111 Richmond St. E. Ward 25:1 replacement sign
Application 999029 323 Richmond St. E.Ward 25:1 replacement sign
Application 999032573 Gerrard Street E.Ward 25:1 replacement sign
Application 999033716 Pape AvenueWard 25:1 replacement sign
The signs in this group do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:
i) third party ground signs are not permitted in CR/MCR or RA districts;
ii) the signs will be located within 60 metres of other third party signs; and
iii) the signs do not meet the minimum set back requirements of 2.0 metres from the street line and 6.0 metres from the
intersection.
The variances for these signs are supportable for a number of reasons:
(a)The signs are an improvement over existing conditions: The new design proposes a reduction in the number of
advertising faces from four to two, resulting in a 50% reduction of third party signage overall. Although I have reservations
about approving new sign structures in areas of the City where they are no longer permitted, I have in the past
recommended approval of the replacement of legal non-conforming signs in a few instances where it would result in an
improvement over the existing conditions.
(b)The separation distances are reasonable: The new signs would be installed in the same locations as the existing signs
which do not meet the minimum 60 metres separation requirement because they were installed prior to the by-law
amendment. This regulation was introduced in order to reduce sign clutter more specifically aimed at third party ground
("billboard") signs. In my opinion, the reduction of advertising display areas and my recommendation to allow only 1
replacement sign per frontage represents a reasonable compromise in this circumstance.
(c)Sight lines are improved: The new design proposes a slender support base which will provide improved sight lines for
motorists entering and exiting the parking lots as well as pedestrians and cyclists on the sidewalk.
(d)Existing site constraints are adequately addressed: The signs do not meet the minimum 2.0 metres setback
requirements because they were installed prior to the setback regulation. If the signs were to comply, they would interfere
with existing parking spaces. In my opinion the new design adequately addresses the issue of sight lines. Three of the eight
locations will also have a cane detectable barrier installed at the base of the sign for vision impaired pedestrians to prevent
injury to upper body and head.
In summary, these 8 applications result in less visual clutter, improved streetscape appearances while also satisfying public
safety concerns. I am therefore recommending approval of variances for these locations.
2. Recommendation to approve, in part, three applications and a total of 4 of the 7 replacement signs proposed therein
Application 99902545 Bay St.Ward 242 of 3 replacement signs on the 2 frontages
Application 9990271 Church St.Ward 241 of 2 replacement signs on the 1 frontage
Application 999031111 Broadview Av.Ward 251 of 2 replacement signs on the 1 frontage
The signs in this group do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:
i) third party ground signs are not permitted in CR/MCR or RA districts;
ii) the signs will be located within 60 metres of each other and other third party signs;
iii) the signs will not be set back 2.0 metres from the street line and 6.0 metres from the intersection; and
iv) only one ground sign for the purpose of identification is permitted per street frontage.
The first three variances in this category are supportable for the reasons noted above. However, I see no rationale for
supporting not only retaining but replacing more than one legal non-conforming ground sign within the frontages of these
lots. The clear intent of the Municipal Code regulations is to limit the number of signs which contribute to visual clutter
along streetscapes.
In my opinion, the 45 Bay Street location, just east of the Air Canada Centre, needs whatever small assistance can be
obtained to improve the streetscape and minimize visual clutter. I note that the 1 Church Street location is adjacent and
exposed to the visual corridor along The Esplanade - one of the key vistas of East Downtown, where again, every effort
should be made to reduce visual clutter and enhance the streetscape. The 111 Broadview Avenue location, just north of
Queen Street provides parking for a rejuvenating BIA area along Queen Street East. This is one of the mainstreets where
small urban design gestures of improving streetscape conditions can really help to enhance the local business community's
improvement projects.
In summary, allowing replacement of the second ground sign at these three parking lots is undesirable and goes contrary to
the Code's original intent. I am therefore recommending approval of only one ground sign along the respective frontages.
3. Recommendation to refuse 2 replacement signs:
Application 999030730 Mount PleasantWard 22
Application 9990341612 Danforth Ave. Ward 26
The two signs in this group do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:
i) third party ground signs are not permitted in CR/MCR or RA districts;
ii) the signs will not be set back 2.0 metres from the street line and 6.0 metres from the intersection; and
iii) the signs will be located within 60 metres of other third party signs.
As illustrated on Figures D and M attached, on each of these two locations, the Toronto Parking Authority also maintains a
monthly lease for a ground ("billboard") sign. The result is that the existing ground ("billboard") signs and the proposed
replacement signs would be only about 15 metres apart - or approximately 25% of the required minimum 60 metres
separation distance.
In my opinion, allowing the replacement of a legal non-conforming ground sign in such close proximity to the other legal
non-conforming ground sign ("billboard") on the same frontage goes contrary to the Code's original intent - which is to
reduce sign clutter and to enhance the visual environment along our commercial mainstreets. I am therefore recommending
refusal of the request to replace two third party ground signs in these locations.
Contact Name:
Lora Mazzocca
Tel: (416) 392-0421
Fax: (416) 392-0580
E-Mail: lmazzocc@toronto.ca
Beate Bowron
Director, Community Planning, South District
(p:/1999/ug/uds/pln/to991892.pln)-tt
