STAFF REPORT FIRST PARTY SIGN VARIANCE Appeal by Pattison Sign Group of the Decision of the Chief Building Official for Two First Party Sign Variances With Respect to a First Party Sign Proposal on the Southerlyfacing Wall of an Existing Building at 3526 Lake Shore Boulevard West Date: February 11, 2011 Ward: File No.: Ward 06 Etobicoke-Lakeshore FP-10-00066 IBMS File No.: 10-290818 PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL To appeal the decision of the Chief Building Official refusing the variances requested in the first party sign variance application to obtain a variance to Chapter 694, Signs, General, required to allow Pattison Sign Group to erect and display two first party wall signs, back to back, on an architectural tower element, at the front elevation, projecting above the roof line of the existing building, in conjunction with the existing automobile dealership on the premises. Each wall sign is proposed to have a sign face area of 5.95 square metres. REQUESTED VARIANCES SECTION REQUIREMENT PROPOSAL 694-21 E (5)(a) An E-Employment sign district may contain a wall sign provided the sign shall only be erected at the first storey. The two (2) proposed wall signs on the architectural tower element are proposed to be erected above the first storey of the building. 694-21 E (5)(d) An E-Employment sign district may contain a wall sign provided the sign shall not extend above the wall or parapet wall of a building. The two (2) proposed wall signs on the architectural tower element are proposed to extend above the wall or parapet wall of the building. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS The Manager, Sign By-law Unit, Toronto Building, recommends that: 1. The Sign Variance Committee refuse the variance requested from 694-21E(5)(a) to allow the erection and display of two wall signs erected above the first storey of the building municipally known as 3526 Lake Shore Boulevard West; and 2. The Sign Variance Committee refuse the variance requested from 694-21E(5)(d) to allow the erection and display of two wall signs extending above the wall or parapet wall of the building municipally known as 3526 Lake Shore Boulevard West. COMMENTS Chapter 694, Signs, General, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code came into force and effect on April 6, 2010. Chapter 694, Signs, General, delegates decision-making powers respecting first party sign variance applications to the Chief Building Official and in the event of an appeal of the decision of the Chief Building Official, to the Sign Variance Committee. As such, this report outlines the position of the Chief Building Official concerning whether the proposed variance meet the criteria established in 694-30A to permit the granting of a variance. It is the Chief Building Official's position, as previously provided in the decision rendered on December 10, 2010, that the proposed variances do not meet the mandatory criteria and should be refused. Applicant s Submission The Applicant s submission package is provided as Attachment 1 to this report. Attachment 1 contains: Site Context A Site Plan prepared by R.H. Carter Architects Inc, describing the location of the proposed sign; A front elevation of the Hyundai portion of the automotive dealership, prepared by Pattison Sign Group and dated January 21, 2010; and A handwritten rationale letter responding to the established criteria as provided for in Chapter 694, Signs, General, undated and unsigned. The premises commonly known as Marino's Auto Mall and located at 3526 Lake Shore Boulevard West is occupied by four separate automotive dealerships, including: "Lakeshore Honda"; West End Hyundai"; "Land Rover"; and "Subaru". This sign variance application deals with proposed signage at West End Hyundai. Marino s Auto Mall recently underwent renovations which included re-facing the front (southerly-facing) one storey façade. The premises is located near the western boundary of Lake Shore Boulevard roughly halfway between the between Browns Line and Kipling Avenue in the former Long Branch (a small lakeside village which was amalgamated into the former Etobicoke). Immediately east 2
of the premises is a local branch of the Toronto Public Library and a row of single detached dwellings behind it with Thirty Second Street running north off of Lake Shore Boulevard. Immediately north of the premises is a Canadian National Rail line and other employment/industrial lands beyond. South of the premises is Lake Shore Boulevard West and a new multi-unit residential development occupying the south side of the street and bordered by one and two storey commercial buildings typical of this retail strip. Immediately west of the premises is a vacant property, currently undergoing soil remediation. This vacant property is the subject of a relatively recent planning application submitted to the City for a new multi-unit residential development proposal. Attachment 2 to this report provides for the sign district of the premises and the surrounding lands. Established Criteria In order to review, consider and make recommendations on sign variance applications, criteria to evaluate an application for a variance is provided in Chapter 694. 694-30A states that an application for a variance from the provisions of Chapter 694 may only be granted where it is established that the proposed sign: (1) Is warranted based on physical circumstances applicable to the property or premises; (2) Is consistent with the architecture of the building or development of the property; (3) Is consistent with buildings and other features of properties or premises within 120 metres of the location of the proposed sign; (4) Will not alter the essential character of the area; (5) Will not adversely affect adjacent properties; (6) Will not adversely affect public safety; (7) Is, in the opinion of the decision maker, not contrary to the public interest; (8) Is of a sign class or a sign type that is permitted in the sign district where the premises is located; and (9) Is not expressly prohibited by 694-15B. In support of the decision respecting the first party sign variance application, the Chief Building Official provides the following comments with respect to each of the criteria, all of which must be established for a variance to be granted: (1) Physical circumstances applicable to the property or premises The applicant has stated that the two proposed wall signs are necessary because the dealership is [located] in a multi-dealer plaza and that identification of the particular automobile dealership is required to distinguish it from the others. The rationale provided to support the proposed signage is not compelling. A recent site visit (refer to photos provided in Attachment 3 to this report) to the premises revealed that the one storey multi-dealer plaza contains: five ground signs, each with two sign faces, identifying each of the four automobile dealers; five additional ground signs, erected at the entranceway to the plaza and providing direction; multiple wall, window and overhanging structure signs, all at the first storey building wall, identifying each of the four automobile dealers; approximately six signs erected 3
on light standards and advertising promotions and services available on the premises; and, a series of flags and banners also erected on light standards on the premises. Furthermore, based on the location of the building in relation to the street and neighbouring buildings and the depth and variation of the front façade, the two proposed wall signs are not visible from either an easterly or a westerly approach. The wall signs are proposed to be erected perpendicular to the street and as such, when viewed straight-on from the south, they too are not visible. Conclusion: It is the Chief Building Official's opinion that it has NOT been established that the proposed sign is warranted based on the physical circumstances applicable to the premises. (2) Consistency with the architecture of the building or the development of the property The proposed wall signs extend above the roof-line and above the parapet wall of the building. Chapter 694, Signs, General expressly prohibits roof signs and although the proposal can be liberally viewed as two wall signs erected on the architectural tower element, it does closely resemble a roof sign, as defined. As such, there may be other opportunities outside of what is originally proposed to identify the automotive dealership on the premises including the existing ground signs. Conclusion: It is the Chief Building Official's opinion that it has NOT been established that the proposed sign is consistent with the architecture of the building or development of the property. (3) Consistency with buildings and other features of properties or premises within 120 metres of the location of the proposed signage There are a substantial number of residential dwelling units within 120 metres of the subject premises all of which have no signage related to their use and occupancy. In addition there are two institutional uses within close proximity, each with limited signage needs. There is one third party roof sign across Lake Shore Boulevard on the south side of the street. There are no other signs on any building in the vicinity which extends above the roof-line or above the parapet wall. Conclusion: It is the Chief Building Official's opinion that it has NOT been established that the proposed sign is consistent with buildings and other features of properties or premises within 120 metres of the location of the proposed sign. (4) Alteration of the essential character of the area The two proposed wall signs will not alter the essential character of the area. The signs are generally difficult to view from passers-by along Lake Shore Boulevard West, especially passers-by travelling in vehicles. The two proposed signs are obstructed from view by four of 4
the five existing ground signs located on the premises and as such will not alter the essential character of the area. Conclusion: It is the Chief Building Official's opinion that it has been established that the proposed sign will not alter the essential character of the area. (5) Adverse affect on adjacent properties The two proposed wall signs will not have an adverse affect on adjacent properties as they generally cannot be viewed. The articulation and height of the front wall of the west side of the building on which the signs are proposed to be erected obstructs any views to the signs. Furthermore, the five ground signs located in the front yard of the premises also contribute to obstructing the proposed signs. Conclusion: It is the Chief Building Official's opinion that it has been established that the proposed sign will not adversely affect adjacent properties. (6) Adverse affect on public safety The proposed first party wall sign will require both a building permit and a sign permit to be erected. This requirement and approval ensures that the erection methodology is consistent with the Ontario Building Code, which ultimately ensures public safety. Conclusion: It is the Chief Building Official's opinion that the proposed sign will not adversely affect public safety. (7) Public interest The first party sign variance application process prescribed in Chapter 694 is a public process. The proponent is required to post a notice on the property for no less than 30 days prior to the Chief Building Official making a decision and a written notice of the proposal is mailed out to the local Ward Councillor and all the property owners of all properties and to the mailing addresses of residential and business tenancies within a 60 metre radius of the property. Sign By-law Unit staff have confirmed that a notice has been posted on the property and, through the decision-making process two letters in opposition to the proposal have been received. Conclusion: It is the Chief Building Official's opinion that it has NOT been established that the proposed sign is not contrary to the public interest. (8) Sign class, sign type and sign district permissions Sign By-law Unit staff have reviewed the proposal and confirm that the property is located in the E-Employment sign district where first party wall signs are permitted. 5
Conclusion: It is the Chief Building Official's opinion that it has been established that the proposed sign is of a sign class or a sign type that is permitted in the sign district where the premises is located. (9) Express prohibitions as per subsection 694-15B Through a review of the proposal, Sign By-law Unit staff have confirmed that the proposed signage is not expressly prohibited by 694-15B of Chapter 694, Signs, General, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code. Conclusion: It is the Chief Building Official's opinion that it has been established that the proposed sign is not expressly prohibited by 694-15B. CONCLUSION In consideration of the two variances requested in the first party sign variance application to obtain a variance to Chapter 694, Signs, General, required to allow Pattison Sign Group to erect and display two first party wall signs, back to back, on an architectural tower element, at the front elevation, projecting above the roof line of the existing building, in conjunction with the existing automobile dealership on the premises at 3526 Lake Shore Blvd West as described, it has not been established that the proposal is in compliance with all of the criteria. Therefore, the Chief Building Official recommends that the Sign Variance Committee refuse the requested variances. CONTACT Robert Bader, Supervisor, Variance, Tax & Permits Sign By-law Unit, Toronto Building Tel: (416) 392-4113; E-mail: rbader@toronto.ca SIGNATURE Ted Van Vliet Manager, Sign By-law Unit ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant s Submission Package 2. Excerpt Sign District Map 3. Photographs of Site and Associated Signage 6
APPLICANT S SUBMISSION PACKAGE 7
8
9
10
11
EXCERPT SIGN DISTRICT MAP 12
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SITE AND ASSOCIATED SIGNAGE View of Premises From West View of Premises From East 13