Report to: Development Services Committee Report Date: December 4, 2007

SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION REPORT

Town-Initiated Amendment

to the Sign By-Law

(Wall Signs in Special Sign Districts)

FILE NO. ZA 07 109644

PREPARED BY: George Duncan, Senior Heritage Planner, Extension 2296

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Development Services Staff Report entitled “Recommendation Report, Town-Initiated Amendment to the Sign By-Law (Wall Signs in Special Sign Districts), ZA 07 109644,” be received;

That the proposed amendment to the Sign By-law 2002-94, attached as Appendix ‘C’, be approved and enacted without further notice;

And that Staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Town’s Sign By-law 2002-94 regulates the size, placement, lighting, materials and types of signs in the Town. Section 10.0 SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICTS regulates signs in the Town’s three designated Heritage Conservation Districts and the Buttonville Heritage Conservation District Study Area. The Sign By-law limits the size of signs in Heritage Conservation Districts, one of the ways the Town ensures that signs are compatible with the heritage character of these areas.

Staff recommend a modest increase in the figure used to calculate the maximum area of a wall sign from 0.25 square metres per 1.0 metres of building façade to 0.30 square metres per 1.0 metres of building façade. Staff also recommend increasing the cap for the area of a wall sign from 2.25 square metres to 5.0 square metres. In this way, signs will be better proportioned to the size of the building or storefront they are on.

A public meeting was held on October 2, 2007, to provide details on the proposed by-law amendment and to provide an opportunity for interested individuals and organizations to provide their input. Notices of the proposed by-law amendment and the meeting were placed in the local newspaper. The Society for Historic Thornhill, the Unionville B.I.A. and the Markham Village B.I.A. were also individually notified by letter.

The Markham Village B.I.A. expressed support for the proposed amendment through Councillor Webster. No comments were received from the Thornhill group. Representatives of the Unionville B.I.A. and the Unionville Villager’s Association attended the meeting and spoke against the proposed changes to the sign by-law, expressing their concerns about the need for more pre-consultation on this matter and noting the work that went into creating the existing provisions of the Sign By-law as it pertains to Special Sign Districts

The concerns expressed by the representatives of the Unionville B.I.A. and Unionville Villagers Association were taken into consideration by Planning staff in the preparation of the attached by-law amendment. It was concluded that it was reasonable to leave the wall sign standards for Main Street Unionville the same as they are now, as requested by the two groups noted above. This decision was based on the pedestrian nature of Main Street Unionville, the narrow road width and the slower speed of traffic passing through. With respect to the Highway 7 frontage within the Unionville Heritage Conservation District, staff are of the opinion that the new standards should apply due to the width of the road and the higher speed of traffic passing through the area.

The proposed By-law amendment for Special Sign Districts has been drafted and is attached to this report for enactment by Council.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Not applicable

1. Purpose 2. Background 3. Discussion 4. Financial

5. Others (Environmental, Accessibility, Engage 21st, Affected Units) 6. Attachment(s)

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to recommend a Town-initiated By-law Amendment regarding walls signs in Special Sign Districts.

BACKGROUND:

The Sign By-law was enacted in 2002

The Town’s Sign By-law 2002-94 was enacted in 2002. This by-law regulates the size, placement, lighting, materials and types of signs in the Town. Section 10.0 SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICTS regulates signs in the Town’s three designated Heritage Conservation Districts: Thornhill, Unionville and Markham Village. It also covers the Buttonville Heritage Conservation District Study Area.

The Sign By-law limits the size of signs in Heritage Conservation Districts

The Sign By-law limits the size of signs in Heritage Conservation Districts. This is just one of the ways the Town ensures that signs are compatible with the heritage character of these areas. Old signs that pre-date the Sign By-law and in some cases, the Heritage Conservation District designations, are ‘grandfathered’ and in a number of instances, do not comply with the Sign By-law. This explains why there are still some large signs and some back-lit signs in our heritage areas.

Current standards for wall signs

This proposed by-law amendment focuses on the size of wall signs. Under the current by-law standards, a wall sign may have a maximum area of 0.25 square metres per 1.0 metres of building façade, to a maximum area of 2.25 square metres.

Some applicants have found the Sign By-law too restrictive to meet their signage needs for their businesses

Since the passing of the Sign By-law in 2002, staff has received feedback from a number of applicants, particularly business owners, that the size provisions of the existing by-law are impractical and overly restrictive to meet their signage needs. In a number of cases, the size of sign permitted by the by-law was out of proportion with the scale of the building façade or storefront, or was too small to be readable from a vehicle. This problem has been particularly noted on Yonge Street within the Thornhill Heritage Conservation District, Highway 7 and on Main Street in the Markham Village Heritage Conservation District, and Highway 7 in the Unionville Heritage Conservation District. This situation has been less of an issue on Main Street, Unionville, because of the small scale of the street and the tendency for a greater degree of pedestrian traffic. Smaller signs seem to work well in an environment where people are moving through the area at a slower pace.

A variance to the Sign By-law was granted to 101 Main Street North, Markham Village in 2006

Variances to the Sign By-law have been requested since it was passed, and the Town’s general approach has been to discourage these. In 2006, a variance to the Sign By-law was granted for the Scotiabank branch at 101 Main Street North, Markham Village, on the basis that the new sign was smaller in size than the existing backlit sign and the new sign would be in compliance with all other aspects of the Sign By-law. Town staff and Council supported the variance because it represented an improvement to the property and removed an old, backlit sign from the commercial core of the Heritage Conservation District. Furthermore, the proposed signage was proportional to the size of the building.

A public meeting was held on October 2, 2007

A public meeting was held on October 2, 2007, to provide details on the proposed by-law amendment and to provide an opportunity for interested individuals and organizations to provide their input. Notices of the proposed by-law amendment and the meeting were placed in the local newspaper. The Society for Historic Thornhill, the Unionville B.I.A. and the Markham Village B.I.A. were also individually notified by letter.

The Markham Village B.I.A. expressed support for the proposed amendment through Councillor Webster. No comments were received from the Thornhill group. Representatives of the Unionville B.I.A. and the Unionville Villager’s Association attended the meeting and spoke against the proposed changes to the Sign By-law, expressing their concerns about the need for more pre-consultation on this matter and noting the work that went into creating the existing provisions of the Sign By-law as it pertains to Special Sign Districts. In short, these groups do not agree that any changes to the Sign By-law are necessary or desirable. As a follow-up to his comments at the public information meeting, Mr. Richard Talbot, representing the Unionville Villager’s Association, provided a written response requesting that the proposed amendment not apply to Main Street Unionville and the Highway 7 commercial strip (see resolution of the Unionville Villager’s Association, Appendix ‘A’)

Heritage Markham has no objections to the proposed by-law amendment

Heritage Markham reviewed the proposed changes to the Sign By-law at its October 10, 2007 meeting. The committee has no objections to the proposed changes (Extract attached, Appendix ‘B’).

OPTIONS/ DISCUSSION:

An amendment to the Sign By-law has been under consideration since 2006

In the staff report concerning Scotiabank that went to Development Services Committee on September 5, 2006, it was stated that “the application has prompted the Heritage Section of Planning and Urban Design Department to review the standards of the Sign By-law for Special Sign Districts to determine if the standards need to be modified to reasonably address the needs of business owners in the Town’s Heritage Conservation Districts.”

An increase to the maximum size provision is recommended

Staff recommend a modest increase in the figure used to calculate the maximum area of a wall sign from 0.25 square metres per 1.0 metres of building façade to 0.30 square metres per 1.0 metres of building façade. Staff also recommend increasing the cap for the area of a wall sign from 2.25 square metres to 5.0 square metres. In this way, signs will be better proportioned to the size of the building or storefront they are on. To demonstrate the effect of such an amendment, staff has prepared a series of scenarios comparing various sizes of storefronts with the maximum area of signage currently allowed with the size allowed using the same calculation but without the maximum area requirement (Figures 1 and 2).

Response to comments received during the public consultation

The concerns expressed by the representatives of the Unionville B.I.A. and Unionville Villagers Association were taken into consideration by Planning staff in the preparation of the attached by-law. It was conclued that it was reasonable to leave the wall sign standards for Main Street Unionville the same as they are now, as requested by the two groups noted above. This decision was based on the pedestrian nature of Main Street Unionville, the narrow road width and the slower speed of traffic passing through. With respect to the Highway 7 frontage within the Unionville Heritage Conservation District, staff were of the opinion that the new standards should apply due to the width of the road and the higher speed of traffic passing through the area. Additionally, the Highway 7 frontage is less traveled by pedestrians than Main Street Unionville and is different in character from the historic commercial core in terms of building type and parking layout.

The proposed By-law has been drafted

The proposed By-law amendment for Special Sign Districts has been drafted and is attached to this report for enactment by Council.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSAL

This amendment should eliminate most requests for wall sign variances

Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment to the Sign By-law would lessen the number of requests for wall sign variances in Heritage Conservation Districts. It could also result in more business owners considering sign replacement to signs more sympathetic to the character of the Heritage Conservation Districts if they know that they can obtain permission for new signage of an appropriate scale.

FINANCIAL TEMPLATE: (external link)

Not applicable.

ENGAGE 21^ST CONSIDERATIONS:

This application aligns with the Corporate Goal of Economic Development by supporting the business community in its efforts to promote businesses with effective signage within heritage areas.

BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:

The Zoning Section has provided input into the proposed by-law amendment and has reviewed this report.

RECOMMENDED BY:

________________________________ ________________________________

Valerie Shuttleworth, MCIP, RPP Jim Baird, MCIP, RPP

Director of Planning & Urban Design Commissioner of Development Services

ATTACHMENTS:

Figures 1 and 2: Comparison of Storefronts with signs based on current and proposed

by-law standards

Appendix ‘A’ – Resolution of the Unionville Villager’s Association

Appendix ‘B’ – Heritage Markham Extract

Appendix ‘C’ – By-Law Amendment

FILE PATH:

Q:\Development\Heritage\SUBJECT\Sign By-law Review\DSCDec407.doc