Appeal by Norm Girdhar of the Chief Building Official's ... · PDF fileSign Proposal for One...

STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED

Appeal by Norm Girdhar of the Chief Building Official's Decision to Refuse Two Variances With Respect to a Sign Proposal for One First Party Ground Sign at 800 Islington Avenue

Date: January 22, 2014

Ward: Etobicoke-Lakeshore (6)

File No.: FP-14-00104

IBMS File No.: 14-190010

PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL This report reviews and makes recommendations on an appeal made by Norm Girdhar (the "Appellant") regarding a decision of the Chief Building Official to refuse to grant one variance to Chapter 694, in respect of a proposal to permit the erection and display of one ground sign displaying electronic static copy, measuring 2.44 metres in width by 6.09 metres in length and erected at a height of 6.00 metres. The proposed sign is to be erected at the north-east corner of the subject premise and displayed towards the intersection of Evans Avenue and Islington Avenue. The subject premise is located in an E-Employment sign district which provides for first party ground signs displaying static sign copy only, whereas the proposed sign is to display electronic static copy. Figure 1: Map Excerpt – 800 Islington Avenue Both the original First Party Sign Variance Application and the subsequent Sign Variance Appeal Application failed to identify a second variance that would be required to be granted to permit the erection and display of the ground sign. This report seeks to remedy that omission. This report recommends refusal of the two variance requested on the basis that the proposed ground sign is not compatible with the development of the premises and surrounding area, does not support Official Plan objectives for the premise

Appeal by Norm Girdhar – 2 First Party Sign Variances – 800 Islington Avenue 1

and surrounding area, will adversely affect adjacent premises, alters the character of the premise and surrounding area, and is in the opinion of the Chief Building Official, contrary to the public interest. Table 1: Summary of Requested Variances

Section Requirement Proposal

694-14E Signs shall display only static copy unless otherwise expressly permitted by this chapter.

The proposed ground sign is to display electronic static copy.

694-20A

First party signs may advertise, promote, or direct attention to goods available at the premises where the sign is located provided the portion of the sign copy which advertises, promotes, or directs attention to goods available at the premises does not exceed 30 percent of the total area of the sign copy.

100 percent of the sign copy displayed on the proposed ground sign is to advertise, promote, or direct attention to goods available at the premises

RECOMMENDATIONS The Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building, recommends that:

1. The Sign Variance Committee refuse the variances requested to §§ 694-14E & 694-20A required to allow the issuance of a permit for the erection and display of one first party ground sign described in Attachment 1 to this report.

SITE CONTEXT The subject premise is located in Ward 6, Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and is situated south of the Gardiner Expressway, and west of Islington Avenue. The area immediately adjacent the subject premise can largely be characterized as an employment area, with a number of similar employment uses on neighbouring properties. To the southeast is the Ourland Park, a multi-use recreational park area and community centre. A summary of the area surrounding 800 Islington Avenue is provided in Table 2 below. The subject premises is designated as an E-Employment sign district and is immediately bordered by other E-Employment sign districts. The area encompassing Ourland Park is designated as an OS-Open Space sign district.


Table 2 – Summary of Area Surrounding 800 Islington Avenue

SIGN ATTRIBUTES The proposal contemplates changing the method in which sign copy is displayed on a previously permitted ground sign required to display static copy only. The proposed sign is to contain one sign face, 1.82 metres in vertical width by 5.12 metres in horizontal length, display electronic static copy, erected at an overall height of 6.00 metres and oriented diagonal to the property boundaries, towards the intersection of Evans Avenue and Islington Avenue. The proposed sign is intended to advertise, promote and direct attention to products and services which are available at the business located on the premises. Table 3: Summary of Proposed Sign Attributes

The proposed first party ground sign is to display electronic static copy. This method of copy display has been recognized, defined and heavily restricted in Chapter 694, limiting its prevalence to two specific geographic locations in the City. Where Chapter 694 permits a sign to display electronic static copy, specific requirements pertaining to a minimum duration of sign copy and a maximum transition of image/copy change, are required to be met.

Sign District Designation of Property: E-Employment

Sign District Designations of Surrounding Properties:

North East South West

E-Employment E-Employment, R-

Residential, OS-Open Space

E-Employment E-Employment

Land Uses and Attributes of Surrounding Properties:

North East South West

Employment and Industrial Uses

Employment and Industrial Uses, Park

Area, Residential townhouses to the north-

east



Sign Type: Ground Sign

Sign Copy Type: Electronic Static Copy

# of Sign Faces One

Sign Location and Orientation:

West of Islington Avenue and South of F.G. Gardiner Expressway. Sign is oriented in a north-easterly direction towards the intersection of Islington Avenue and Evans Avenue.

Sign Face Dimensions (width x length): 5.12 metres x 1.82 metres


COMMENTS Use and Signage History: The business operations of William F. White relocated to the subject premises some time in 2009/10. The facility located on the subject premises is used to store equipment and props for use in the film and television industry – a burgeoning industry in south Etobicoke. A sign permit was issued in December 2010 that provided for one ground sign, along the Islington Avenue frontage of the premises to identify the business operations of William F. White (See Figure 2). The sign is a well executed and tasteful example of a business identification sign that is consistent with the building and use which it identifies. In 2012, a First Party Sign Variance Application was made to seek variances which would provide for a ground sign, with electronic static copy, in the precise location as the sign which is the subject of this current Appeal. The variances sought were not granted. Through this 2012 application process however, staff worked diligently with the Applicant, through the local Ward Councillor's office, to support a ground sign, with an electronic static copy sign face component and that would be more consistent with the existing ground sign as depicted in Figure 2 above. Staff had suggested that such a sign would be more suitable along the Evans Avenue frontage of the premises. Early in the following year, another request for variances to provide for a ground sign, with electronic static copy, in the precise location as the sign which is the subject of this current Appeal was refused. Again, staff attempted to work with the proponent, through the local Ward Councillor's office, to search for a reasonable, negotiated compromise and which could include an electronic static copy component. In respect of the second First Party Sign Variance Application, shortly after the variances being sought were not granted, an application was made to permit the erection and display of a ground sign, with only static copy displayed on the sign face. A sign permit was issued however, upon inspection of the sign and its supporting structure, staff noted that the sign was not in compliance with the approved plans and drawings. A ground sign with a sign face displaying electronic static copy was erected instead of a ground sign with a sign face displaying static copy. A Notice of Violation was issued and a third First Party Sign Variance

Figure 2: Existing Ground Sign Identifying Business


Application was submitted yet again seeking relief from the By-law provisions respecting method of copy display. The variances being sought were for the third time refused, hence the appeal of the City's decision to the Sign Variance Committee. Criteria Established by §694-30A of Chapter 694: 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 meets each of these criteria. Administrative Criteria: The Administrative Criteria are listed at §694-30A (1), (2), and (7) of Chapter 694. They are criteria that are evaluated largely by looking at the sign class and sign type, as defined, as well as determining if the proposed sign is a sign that is otherwise prohibited. As provided in Table 4 below, the proposed ground sign meets all three of the administrative criteria for a variance to be granted. The proposed sign is located within an E-Employment sign district, which permits first party signs, is not a third party sign, and is also not prohibited by §694-15B. Table 4 – Summary of Administrative Criteria

Section Criteria Description Meets

Criteria? (yes/no)

Rationale

694-30A(1) Belongs to a sign class permitted in the sign district

Yes • First party signs are permitted in the E-Employment sign district.

694-30A(2) In the case of a third party sign, must be of a sign type permitted in the sign district

Yes • The proposed sign is a first party sign.

694-30A(7) Not be a sign prohibited by §694-15B Yes • The proposed first party ground sign is not

prohibited by §694-15B.

Design Criteria: The Design Criteria are listed at §694-30A (3), (4), and (8). These criteria are focused on the compatibility of the proposed sign with the current and future development of the subject premises and surrounding area. In reviewing an application against these criteria, staff consider, amongst other things, surrounding developments (existing or proposed), signs, and relevant city policies. As provided in Table 5 below, the proposed ground sign does not meet all three of the design criteria for a variance to be granted. The proposal is contrary to Official Plan objectives, and is not compatible with and is likely to alter the character of development on the premises and surrounding area.


Table 5 – Summary of Design Criteria


Criteria? (yes/no)

Rationale

694-30A(3) Compatible with the development on the premises and surrounding area

No

• The proposed sign, which is to be used exclusively for advertisings goods available on the premises, is more akin to a third party sign.

o There are few third party ground signs in the immediate area.

• Other ground signs associated with the various industrial and employment uses in the area, are generally used for identification purposes and are erected at or near the entrance to the building on the premise.

o The proposed sign is to be erected a substantial distance from the building's entrance, and is to be used exclusively for advertising purposes rather than identification.

694-30A(4) Supports the Official Plan objectives for the property and surrounding area

No

• The Official Plan designates the subject premise as an Employment Area. Employment Areas are to be places of business and economic activity as well as ancillary uses such as restaurants and small scale retail stores.

• The applicant has not provided a rational to demonstrate how the proposed sign would support Official Plan Objectives for the area.

694-30A(8) Does not alter the character of the premises or surrounding area

No

• The proposed method of copy display is inconsistent with the display technology of all other signs in the area.

o There are no other signs displaying electronic static copy on adjacent properties.

o The subject premise contains two existing ground signs that each display static copy.

Impact Criteria: The Impact Criteria are the criteria listed at §694-30A (5), (6), and (9). These criteria are focused on the impact that a sign may have on surrounding buildings and properties and on the public in general. These criteria also consider whether or not the proposed sign will have any impacts on public safety. The proposed ground sign does not meet all three of the impact criteria required for a variance to be granted. The proposed sign does adversely affects adjacent premises, does not adversely affect public safety, and is in the opinion of staff, contrary to the public interest.


Table 6 – Summary of Impact Criteria


Criteria? (yes/no)

Rationale

694-30 A(5) Does not adversely affect adjacent premises No

• The proposed ground sign is oriented in a north-easterly direction towards the intersection of Evans Avenue and Islington Avenue, and will be located approximately 145 metres from an existing townhouse development.

o Although this is a substantial distance, the orientation and method of copy display may result in the sign having an adverse impact on the residents within the sensitive land use.

694-30 A(6) Does not adversely affect public safety Yes

• Although signs displaying electronic static copy have been identified as being more distracting than signs displaying other types of sign copy, there is no statistical relationship found between electronic static copy and increases in traffic collisions.

• The proposed sign is to be professionally designed and installed so that it is in accordance with all requirements of the Ontario Building Code.

694-30 A(9) Is not contrary to the public interest Yes

• Electronic signs are currently the subject of an interdivisional review regarding the appropriateness of this method of copy display in an E-Employment sign district.

CONCLUSION In consideration of the original materials submitted, it is staff's opinion that the Appellant has not established that the requested variances required for the proposed sign meet all nine of the established criteria. As such, it is recommended that the Sign Variance Committee refuse to grant the variances requested from Chapter 694, Signs, General, required for the proposed sign. CONTACT Brody Paul Robert Bader Sign Building Code Examiner Inspector Supervisor, Sign By-law Unit Tel: (416) 392-3537 Tel: (416) 392-4113 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] SIGNATURE ___________________________ Ted Van Vliet Manager, Sign By-law Unit ATTACHMENTS

1. Description of Sign; 2. Sign Location; and, 3. Applicants Submission Package


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

ATTACHMENT 1: DESCRIPTION OF SIGN A first party ground sign to be located at the premises municipally known as 800 Islington Avenue, containing one sign face, described as follows:

a) In the shape of a rectangle; b) At a height of 6.0 metres; c) Having a total sign face area of 14.86 square metres; d) Having a horizontal measurement of 6.09 metres; e) Having a vertical measurement of 2.44 metres; f) Displaying electronic static copy; g) Containing sign copy which wholly advertises, promotes or

directs attention to goods and services available on the premises;

h) Illuminated, in compliance with § 694-18; and i) Oriented to be displayed in a north-easterly direction.


ATTACHMENT 2: SIGN LOCATION


ATTACHMENT 3: APPLICANT'S SUBMISSION PACKAGE


Appeal by Norm Girdhar of the Chief Building Official's ... · PDF fileSign Proposal for One...

Documents

Transcript of Appeal by Norm Girdhar of the Chief Building Official's ... · PDF fileSign Proposal for One...