Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of The Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

Corporate Services, Property Services Division

(High Park, Davenport, Midtown, Downtown, Don River)

 The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

 Purpose:

 To review and make recommendations respecting applications for variances to maintain ten illuminated ground signs and one illuminated pedestal sign.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

 Not applicable.

 Recommendations:

 It is recommended that:

 (1)City Council approve Applications Nos. 997112 and 997117, respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain two illuminated ground signs.

 (2)City Council approve Application No. 997120, respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated pedestal sign on condition that the pedestal sign be set back 2.0 metres from the south and east property lines.

 (3)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Applications Nos. 997112, 997117 and partial approval of Application No. 997120 of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

 (4)City Council refuse Applications Nos. 997111, 997113, 997114, 997115 and 997116, respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain five illuminated ground signs.

 (5)City Council refuse Application No. 997120, respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain three illuminated ground signs.

 Background:

 At its meeting dated October 6 & 7, 1997, the former City of Toronto Council adopted a report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services respecting existing signboard locations on City-owned properties. The report identified that there are 13 existing third party signs, located on ten City-owned properties that currently generate revenue to the City pursuant to long standing blanket agreements. However, it appears that the City could generate greater revenue potential if the signs were submitted to a competitive bid.

 Investigations have determined that none of the existing signs conform to the sign provisions of the Municipal Code. Legal non-conforming signs are permitted to remain in their existing locations provided there are no changes to the sign structure, location or height. Separate applications have been made to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for minor variance approval.

 I am in receipt of minor variance applications for each of the ten properties. Two of these properties have been withdrawn recently. I have reviewed the remaining eight properties (11 signs) as identified on the attached Table 1.

 The Commissioner of Corporate Services has reviewed this report and has no objection to the recommendations.

 The Commissioner of Corporate Services advises that subsequent to Council=s consideration of this report, she will be reporting to Corporate Services Committee on recommended courses of action for each of the locations outlined in this report.

 Comments:

 1873 Bloor Street West (997111) (Ward 19)

 The property is located on the south side of Bloor Street West, in a park district. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated ground sign for third party advertising on the north-west corner of the property (see Figures A and A-1). The sign has a length of 6 metres and a height of 3 metres, with an area of 18 m5.

 The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that a third party ground sign is not permitted in a park district.

 The site is part of a closed public road allowance that is currently maintained and operated by the Parks and Recreation Division as part of the High Park public open space and ravine lands. Beneath the site are important water and sewer lines, but on the surface the site has become visually and physically a part of High Park with access to the park via a public stair. Directly to the east of the site is a part of High Park that the Ministry of Natural Resources has determined to be provincially significant with Black Oak savannah and Red Oak Forest ecosystems. High Park has recently been declared a prominent site under Section 3.5 of the former City of Toronto Official Plan and has been designated Aenvironmentally significant@.

 The Parks and Recreation Division have advised that the existing location of the ground sign on a steep wooded ravine slope has had a detrimental impact on surrounding vegetation which may ultimately contribute to accelerated erosion of the ravine slope. Its location, adjacent to the ravine slope entrance to High Park is also intrusive visually and detracts from the public enjoyment of view corridors into the park and across the park to Lake Ontario. The location of the existing ground sign conflicts with City Council=s larger objectives for ravine slope protection, restoration and management of High Park=s significant natural environment, and preservation of significant view corridors into High Park and to Lake Ontario.

 Given its location in a public park, its detrimental impact on the surrounding vegetation, and its impairment of view corridors, I am recommending that this application be refused, as I consider the requested variance to be significant and not within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

 423 Old Weston Road (Application No. 997117) (Ward 21)

 The property is located on the east side of Weston Road, north of St. Clair Avenue West, in a residential (R2) district and a park (G) district. The property accommodates a City Works storage yard.

 The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated ground sign for third party advertising on the west side of the property (see Figures B and B-1). The sign has a length of 6 metres and a height of 3 metres, with an area of 18 m5.

 The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that a third party ground sign is not permitted in a residential or parks district.

 The existing sign is located within the residentially zoned portion of the property. The lands, although zoned for residential and parks purposes, currently accommodate a storage yard. The lands west of the site and across Old Weston Road are zoned industrial and accommodate a supermarket. The nearest residential building from which the sign is visible is approximately 120 metres north of the property and across Old Weston Road and in my opinion, the sign does not adversely impact the surrounding uses.

 I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

 307 MacPherson Avenue, 315 MacPherson Avenue, 325 MacPherson Avenue (997114) (997115) (997116) (Ward 23)

 The properties are located on the south side of MacPherson Avenue, east and west of Davenport Road, in an industrial (I1) district. The property on the east side of Davenport Road (No. 307 MacPherson Avenue) accommodates a surface parking lot and the properties on the west side of Davenport Road (Nos. 315 and 325 MacPherson Avenue) are vacant and currently used as a storage yard.

 The applicant is requesting permission to maintain three illuminated ground signs for third party advertising. The sign on the east side of Davenport Road (seen on Figures C and C-1) has a length of 12 metres and a height of 3 metres, with an area of 36 m5 and the signs on the west side of Davenport Road (seen on Figures D, D-1, E and E-1) each have a length of 6 metres and a height of 3 metres, with an area of 18 m5.

 The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1. the signs are located within 40 metres of a lot in a residential or park district;

 2.the signs are not set back 2.0 metres from the streetline and 6.0 metres from the intersection;

1. the signs are located within 60 metres of each other;

1. the signs are not of single/double pole construction; and

1. the area of the sign on the east side (36 m5) exceeds the maximum permitted area of 25 m5.

 The properties lie within the Dupont Street corridor, an area of the City for which there are specific sign regulations set out in the Municipal Code. At its meeting of July 24, 1995, the former City of Toronto Council passed by-law 1995-0488 to amend Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code to, among other things, limit the maximum size and height of ground signs on industrial zoned lands to 25 m5 and 10 metres respectively and to increase the setback requirements to residential and park districts.

 City Council took this action based on my June 15, 1995 study which examined the impact of third party signs along industrially-zoned portions of Dupont Street, MacPherson Avenue and Geary Avenue on neighbouring residential districts. The study noted that industrial uses in this area are typically located on small, shallow lots that are in close proximity to residential uses and the 20 metre setback requirement represented only the width of the street as the buffer between the signs and the residential properties. The new 40 metre setback requirement creates a more appropriate buffer and affords greater protection from the visual intrusion of these signs on residential neighbourhoods. In this instance, the signs are located on the south side of MacPherson Avenue and the residential uses are located on the north side of MacPherson Avenue, approximately 20 metres away. In my opinion, the close proximity of these signs to this largely residential neighbourhood contradicts the intent of these provisions and would set an undesirable precedent for properties in this area.

The second and third variances occur because the signs do not meet the minimum separation distance and setback requirements from the streetline. These regulations were introduced into the Municipal Code in order to prevent sign clutter and ensure that, where possible, sight lines for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are improved. In this instance, the signs are oriented north and are highly visible from neighbouring residential uses . In my opinion, too many signs situated too close to one another in this location are excessive and detract from the appearance of the area.

 The last two variances occur because one sign is larger than permitted by the Municipal Code and the signs have been constructed with triple poles instead of single or double poles. These illuminated signs each stand approximately 6 metres high and the additional poles help to reinforce their size.

 In my opinion, allowing third party ground signs in this location is inappropriate given all of the variances described above. I am, therefore, recommending that the applications be refused.

 120 Harbour Street (997120) (Ward 24)

 The property is located on the north-west corner of York Street and Harbour Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a surface parking lot.

 The applicant is requesting permission to maintain three illuminated ground signs and one illuminated pedestal sign on the east side of the site (see Figures F, F-1 and F-2). The ground signs each have a length of 6 metres and a height of 3 metres, with an area of 18 m5, and the pedestal sign has a length of 1.2 metres and height of 3.9 metres, with an area of 4.6 m5.

 The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1. third party ground and pedestal signs are not permitted in a CR district; and

1. the signs will be located within 60 metres from each other.

 At its meeting of April 2, 1996, the former City of Toronto Council passed By-law No. 1996-0172 to amend Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code to prohibit third party ground and pedestal signs in CR and MCR districts and to increase the separation requirements for these signs throughout the rest of the city. These regulations are aimed at preventing sign clutter in the city=s commercial/residential districts, and ensuring that, where possible, sightlines for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are improved. In this instance, the ground signs have a triangular orientation, more specifically south-west, south-east and north-east and are located so as to be visible to motorists travelling along York Street, Harbour Street and Lakeshore Boulevard. The four-sided pedestal sign is located immediately south of the existing ground signs. The intersection south of the property is signalized and contains telephone booths and street lights. While this commercial/residential area is currently undeveloped and while the signs are situated on a large traffic island, it is my opinion that this many signs in such close proximity result in undesirable clutter.

 Consequently, I am recommending that the three existing ground signs be refused. However, given that the pedestal sign is being used to advertise parking rates associated with the parking lot use, I recommend approval of the existing pedestal sign on condition that the sign be set back 2.0 metres from the south and east property lines.

 756 Eastern Avenue (997113) (Ward 25)

 The property is located on the north side of Eastern Avenue, in a residential (R3) district. The property is currently vacant.

 The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated ground sign for third party advertising on the south end of the property (see Figures G and G-1). The sign has a length of 6 metres and a height of 3 metres, with an area of 18 m5.

 The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that a third party ground sign is not permitted in a residential district.

 Signs in residential districts are required to be small and low and used only for purposes of first party identification in order to limit any negative impact on neighbouring residential uses. In this instance, the property located immediately north of the site is used for residential purposes and the existing sign blocks views out of the first and second storey windows of the building.

 I am recommending that this application be refused, as I consider the variance to be significant and not within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

744 Dundas Street East (997112) (Ward 25)

The property is located on the north side of Dundas Street East, west of Bayview Avenue in an industrial (I2) district. The property is currently vacant.

 The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated ground sign for third party advertising on the south-east corner of the site (see Figures H and H-1). The sign has a length of 6 metres and a height of 3 metres, with an area of 18 m5.

 The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it is located within 60 metres of another 3^rd party sign. The separation distance was introduced into the Municipal Code in order to prevent sign clutter. In this instance, however, the signs are oriented in different directions, east and south, are located north and south of the Dundas Street overpass and are not visible from the same vantage point.

 I am, therefore, recommending that this application be approved as I find the variance requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

 Contact:

 Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca