Report to/Rapport au :
Comité de l'urbanisme
and Council / et au Conseil
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City
Manager,
Directrice
municipale adjointe, Infrastructure
Services and Community Sustainability, Services d'infrastructure et Viabilité des
collectivités
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Arlene Grégoire, Director/Directrice,
Building Code Services and Chief Building Official/Direction des services code
du bâtiment et chef du service du bâtiment, Planning and Growth
Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613) 580-2424 x 41425, arlene.gregoire@ottawa.ca
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Committee recommend City Council maintain the current
City-wide prohibition on rooftop signs set out in the Permanent Signs on
Private Property By-law 2005-439.
RECOMMANDATION DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité de
l’urbanisme recommande au Conseil municipal de maintenir l’interdiction, sur tout
le territoire municipal, des enseignes sur toiture établie dans le Règlement
2005-439 sur les enseignes permanentes sur les propriétés privées.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assumptions and Analysis:
The City’s Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law does not permit rooftop signs, and there were long-standing prohibitions on such signs in most of the former municipalities in the Ottawa region.
In 2010, City Council directed staff to undertake a review of the merits and impact of this restriction, including a survey of other municipal sign by-laws, and public consultation. This action was precipitated as a result of substantial public support for a sign, in the shape of a cow, to remain on top of the roof of a retail business in Orléans.
The survey of other municipalities that was undertaken indicates that numerous municipalities prohibit rooftop signs, while others permit this type of signage in a restricted manner. The City of Toronto recently started to prohibit rooftop signs through its adoption of a new signs by-law. The usual reasons stated for prohibition by municipalities are for aesthetic purposes and to protect views.
It is recommended that the current general prohibition on rooftop signs be maintained for the following reasons:
Financial Implications:
There are no direct financial implications associated with this report.
Public Consultation/Input:
Public consultation on the matter took the form of an on-line survey earlier this year (261 respondents). The results indicate that City-wide, 45 per cent felt rooftop signs would have a negative impact on their community, and 40 per cent felt they would have no impact. The percentage of those who felt there would be a positive impact was much higher in the Orléans area and the rural wards. There was also a significant difference in attitudes on a geographic basis towards rooftop signs; with the wards located in the Orléans area, showing comparatively substantially greater acceptance of both permanent rooftop signs in commercial areas and temporary rooftop signs; which through review of the comments, appears to be linked to support for the cow sign. A petition was also received with thousands of names in support of this particular sign.
RÉSUMÉ
Hypothèses et analyse :
Le Règlement municipal sur les enseignes
permanentes sur les propriétés privées n’autorise pas l’installation
d’enseignes sur toiture, et ce type d’enseigne est interdit de longue date dans
la plupart des anciennes municipalités de la région d’Ottawa. En 2010, le
Conseil municipal chargeait le personnel d’entreprendre un examen des avantages
et des répercussions de cette interdiction, en menant notamment une enquête sur
les autres règlements municipaux visant les enseignes ainsi que des
consultations publiques. Cette mission avait été diligentée en raison du
soutien public important manifesté pour le maintien d’une enseigne, en forme de
vache, installée sur le toit d’un commerce de détail d’Orléans.
L’enquête entreprise sur les autres règlements
municipaux a permis de révéler que de nombreuses municipalités interdisent les
enseignes sur toiture, alors que certaines autorisent ce type d’enseigne, mais
avec des restrictions. La Ville de Toronto interdit depuis peu les enseignes
sur toiture, par suite de l’adoption d’un nouveau règlement sur les enseignes.
Les motifs habituellement invoqués par les municipalités pour les interdire ont
trait à l’esthétique et à la protection des panoramas.
Il est recommandé de maintenir l’interdiction
générale actuelle visant les enseignes sur toiture, pour les raisons
suivantes :
Un examen technique du règlement doit avoir
lieu au début de l’année 2012. Il sera alors possible de modifier les
dispositions relatives à une délégation de pouvoirs permettant d’approuver les
enseignes sur toiture représentant des objets, au cas par cas.
Répercussions
financières :
Le présent rapport n’aura aucune incidence
financière directe.
Consultation publique
/ commentaires :
La consultation publique sur le sujet a
consisté à réaliser, plus tôt cette année, un sondage en ligne
(261 répondants). Les résultats obtenus indiquent que, sur l’ensemble du
territoire municipal, 45 pour cent des répondants estiment que les enseignes
sur toiture auraient un impact négatif sur leur collectivité, et que 40 pour
cent sont d’avis qu’elles n’auraient aucun impact.
Le pourcentage des répondants estimant que
l’impact serait positif est beaucoup plus élevé dans le secteur Orléans et dans
les quartiers ruraux. On a également noté une différence importante dans leur
point de vue sur les enseignes sur toiture, en fonction de l’emplacement
géographique; pour ce qui concerne les quartiers du secteur Orléans, on observe
une acceptation comparativement beaucoup plus forte des enseignes sur toiture
permanentes dans les zones commerciales et des enseignes sur toiture
temporaires; après examen des commentaires, cette tendance semble être liée au
soutien à l’égard de l’enseigne en forme de vache. Une pétition de plusieurs
milliers de signatures a par ailleurs été reçue en faveur de cette enseigne en
particulier.
BACKGROUND
Rooftop signs are not permitted under the City’s Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law 2005-439, nor as temporary signs under By-law 2004-239. At some time prior to October 2009, the owner of a retail business in a commercial plaza in Orléans installed a wall sign without a sign permit and a rooftop sign (in this instance, in the shape of a cow). The owner was advised of the by-law violations. While a sign permit application for the wall sign was received in January 2010, the owner did not take action to remove the cow sign from the roof and was advised that enforcement action was pending.
On February 9, 2010 at the Planning and Environment Committee, Councillor Monette moved a notice of motion in regards to this rooftop sign on the basis of the substantial community support for the cow sign. On February 23, 2010, the Committee approved a recommendation that “staff be directed to undertake a review of the merits and impact of the prohibition of rooftop signs including a survey of other municipal sign by-laws and public consultation, and report back to Council by December 31, 2010”. On March 24, 2010, City Council approved the recommendation directing staff to undertake this review. It is noted that the motion, as approved, also allowed the cow sign to remain in place pending the review. Delays in completing the review and report were encountered due to limited resource allocation and other conflicting priorities.
Objectives of By-laws
Regulating Signs
Municipalities regulate signs for a number of reasons:
The City’s Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law, approved in
2005, reflects some common principles which ensure that permanent signs are
appropriate in the public realm, with little to no negative impact on their
surrounding environment, as follows:
The Temporary
Signs on Private Property By-law, approved in 2004, and enforced by By-law and
Regulatory Services, Community and Protective Services, also reflects similar principles of safety, compatibility and
aesthetics. This by-law permits four 30-day temporary signs for each business
at any one location per calendar year, with the intention to provide retail
outlets with the ability to advertise in each of the seasons throughout the
year.
Framework for the
Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law
The following points provide a
general understanding of how By-law 2005-239 works:
History of Prohibition of Rooftop Signs
Prior to the establishment of sign by-laws, municipalities were dealing with an increase in scale and numbers of signs significantly degrading the visual quality of cities. The increase in signage was understandable in appreciation of the need for businesses to be seen and remain competitive.
The former City of Ottawa adopted its first Sign By-law in 1962, and permanent rooftop signs have been prohibited since that time. Prior to amalgamation, the City of Vanier amended their sign by-law to specifically prohibit rooftop signs, however one likely predated this prohibition; a rectangular shaped sign located on the roof of a building on Montréal Road. Other former municipalities, other than West-Carleton which did not regulate signs other than billboards, also did not permit rooftop signs. At amalgamation, the City inherited 11 sign bylaws and with the harmonization of these by-laws in 2005, the prohibition of rooftop signs was maintained.
Survey of Other Municipalities
As an initial benchmark, it is important to understand how other cities have dealt with the issue of rooftop signs, including the rationale for either permitting or not permitting this type of sign, and the direct or perceived impact on the city and local communities. A series of questions were developed to solicit consistent information from a variety of Canadian municipalities.
The results of the survey, outlined in Document 1, indicate that while a number of cities in Canada, including the two largest cities, prohibit rooftop signs; there are also others that permit this type of signage in a restricted manner.
The rationale for the prohibition in Vancouver, Halifax Regional Municipality (Downtown), Mississauga, Toronto, Brampton and Montréal (Côte-des-Neiges) was primarily to improve the public realm, by creating aesthetically pleasing spaces and protecting urban landscapes and vistas. In Vancouver, it was also based on concerns expressed by citizens about sign proliferation and overcrowding and Vancouver’s desire to showcase architecture and nature (mountains and sea). The City of Toronto undertook a detailed review of signage regulations and has recently adopted a new comprehensive sign by-law that now prohibits rooftop signs. The majority of Toronto’s existing rooftop signs were billboards or third-party advertising signs. The stated reason for this new approach is to support Toronto’s Official Plan objective to achieve a “City of Beauty.”
Calgary, Halifax Regional Municipality (Peninsula), Kingston, St. Catharines and London permit rooftop signs only in commercial and industrial areas. Many of these municipalities restrict the height of rooftop signs to the maximum height limitation under their zoning or land use by-laws. Similarly, in all cases these cities limit the regulation of sign content to either on-premises or off-premises identification and/or advertising.
It was clear from the results of the survey that cities are concerned rooftop signs will undermine the visual quality of the environment and hinder their objectives to preserve and enhance specific areas, community identity and principal approaches to the city. From this survey, it can be concluded that this stresses the importance of assessing the potential impact of rooftop signs against the urban design and compatibility objectives of Ottawa’s Official Plan.
Public Feedback on Rooftop Signs
In March and April 2011, an online survey was conducted to gauge public opinion on rooftop signs. The questionnaire, which contained seven questions, as outlined in Document 2, was preceded by a discussion paper to provide background information to the public prior to accessing the questionnaire.
The survey also allowed for the submission of additional comments, which are also summarized in Document 2. A total of 261 surveys were completed, and approximately one third of the respondents were from the east urban area (Orléans and surrounding area), another third from neighbourhoods inside the greenbelt, about five per cent from the rural wards, and the rest, from other areas of the city, outside Ottawa or the respondent’s location was not provided.
The results of the survey indicated that overall many residents are opposed to rooftop signs as they feel they would have a negative impact on their community. In the east urban wards, there was significant difference of opinion compared to the rest of the city. From the comments submitted, it is clear that the support for rooftop signs was likely in reaction to the cow sign. From the comments it appeared that this support did not necessarily extend to all forms of rooftop signs (ie. support for the cow sign but not billboards or other types of signs on the roof).
A number of the questions in the survey sought feedback on regulatory standards should rooftop signs be permitted. The respondents indicated these following concerns:
Regarding permitting rooftop signs on a temporary basis, 40 per cent were in support and 60 per cent against.
DISCUSSION
Ottawa has a relatively “clean” skyline when compared to other cities that have in the past permitted, or are still permitting, rooftop signs (for example, the view of Toronto and Montréal’s skyline from their expressways). This is primarily due to the long-standing prohibition of rooftop signs that existed in all but one or two of the former Ottawa municipalities. It would therefore be considered a significant change for the City to now introduce rooftop signs as an additional permitted sign type. Ottawa would be moving in the opposite direction to the approach taken by a number of other Canadian cities that have in the past, or have more recently, banned new rooftop signs.
An
evaluation of whether rooftop signs should be permitted in Ottawa needs to be
undertaken at a policy level, in order to determine first of all; whether this
initiative is aligned with the City’s long-term city building goals and
strategic priorities. In addition to considering the urban design and
compatibility implications, there are a number of additional factors that need
to be examined in determining whether the current prohibition of rooftop signs
in Ottawa should be lifted. These include community values, economic
considerations and safety. Finally, if
Ottawa did consider lifting the prohibition for rooftop signs, it would be
necessary to consider the industry’s shift and desire to install signs with
digital technology, which would present additional challenges.
The City’s Official Plan and Strategic Plan
As has been the trend over the past two decades, the achievement of
good urban design has become a higher priority for municipalities. This is
reflected in Ottawa’s Official Plan, with its urban design objectives concerned
with how buildings, landscapes and adjacent public spaces look and function
together. Compatible development combined with streetscapes and neighbourhoods
that will contribute to a community identity is the desired result. Furthermore, the City’s previous Strategic
Plan (it is now currently under review) also places priority on making Ottawa a
leading edge city for urban design.
Owing to their location on top of buildings and generally their larger
size, rooftop signs are highly visible and tend to be more easily viewed from a
longer distance and in surroundings where there is less building mass or
density. Furthermore, because they are located higher than the normal cone of
vision (the standard range of views that people have in carrying out their
daily activities); they are not as effective in terms of wayfinding and as a
mode of advertisement, particularly for pedestrians, compared to ground or wall
signs. And because of their visual dominance, they also have a higher
likelihood of impacting the surrounding environment and are more difficult to
integrate into their existing context.
Compatible development enhances an established community and coexists
with existing development without causing undue adverse impact on surrounding
properties. It “fits well” within its physical context and “works well” among
those functions that surround it.
Signage is an important individual element of urban design. Therefore
it should be ascertained whether rooftop signs can effectively contribute to,
or would in fact detract from, the City’s urban design objectives; and whether,
where or how this type of sign can achieve compatible development.
While
the Official Plan seeks to improve the level of urban design within all land
use designations, either at the city-wide level or on a site-specific basis; it
recognizes that this may not be achieved or achievable in all cases. The
Official Plan goes on to say that although areas of the city are at different
stages of their evolution, which may influence the ability to fully implement
all aspects of the design objectives; nevertheless, the application of good
design in all stages of an areas’
development is important and should be pursued.
The range of permitted sign types and the degree of regulations for signage, such as size restrictions and setbacks, are aligned with the various land use based zone categories of the City’s Zoning By-law. The zones themselves, and their associated development standards, are founded on the City’s Official Plan designations and policy directions. This is done so that Ottawa’s sign regulations are context sensitive and reflect a graduated approach to sign permissions from the most restrictive in residential areas, to the most permissive in the more intensive commercial and industrial zones. It is therefore on the basis of the Official Plan designations and their associated polices that we can determine where, if at all, rooftop signs might be appropriate or not, from the perspective of urban design and compatibility.
1. Design Priority Areas (Downtown, Mainstreets and Transit-oriented Centres)
The Official Plan designates certain areas in the city as Design Priority Areas (DPAs). DPAs are the City’s most important ‘people’ places and where significant growth is to occur. The DPAs in the City are:
i) Downtown such as Centretown, Downtown West and the Byward Market;
ii)
Traditional Mainstreets such as Elgin Street,
Preston Street and Rideau Street;
iii)
Arterial Mainstreets such as Bank
Street, Merivale Road, Carling Avenue, St. Laurent Boulevard, Hazeldean Road,
Baseline Road, etc.
iv) Mixed Use Centres and Town Centres such as Kanata, South Nepean, Baseline-Woodroffe, Tunney’s Pasture, Gloucester, Cumberland/Orleans, etc.; and
v)
Village
mainstreets and commercial cores where the objective is to maintain and
enhance the small town atmosphere and community values.
The
intent is for these high profile areas to significantly redevelop and
intensify, and for this reason, the design of these spaces and environments is
of prime importance to the City. Rooftop
signs are not considered appropriate because they would not fit into the
context of the desired more dense, pedestrian-oriented built environments of
these design priority areas of the City.
2.
Significant Views, Corridors and Scenic Entry Routes
The Official Plan also provides for the protection of significant views,
view sequences or view corridors that must be preserved, including views in the
Central Area and from the Beechwood Cemetery to Parliament Hill. As well, the
Official Plan designates River and Canal Corridors and Scenic Entry Routes
(which includes the Queensway), into the city. One of the most common
objections to rooftop signs is that they detract from views of the skyline
because of large projections above rooflines that gives it a cluttered
appearance. As well, rooftop signs can increase the obstruction of views
because they are added above existing buildings. In fact one of the main
reasons stated by Vancouver for the prohibition of rooftop signs some 40 years
ago was to protect the City’s world renowned views to the mountains. From
various vantage points in Ottawa, we also have beautiful views of the Gatineau
Hills. It is noted that the City of
Gatineau does not permit rooftop signs. Where views are important, rooftop
signs should not be permitted.
The City has also previously
heard from amateur and professional astronomers about how light trespass is
reducing their ability to view the night sky. These types of signage, if illuminated, would further contribute, in
addition to other sources of lighting, to limiting this night sky visibility.
In addition, the concern regarding light pollution and light trespass is more
significant today due to the numbers of illuminated signs (cumulative effect)
and the use of new technologies that allow for brighter and more
intense light emissions.
3. Heritage Districts and Cultural Heritage
Resources
These
areas in the Official Plan comprise any property that contains, or is adjacent
to a resource that has heritage significance or whose historical or aesthetic
context should be preserved or enhanced.
The focus is on preservation, and generally all forms of signage are
already very limited in these areas. Rooftop signs would not be considered
compatible with the original building design, massing and historic significance
of heritage buildings.
4. Residential, Natural Features and Open Space
Areas, and Institutional/ Community Facilities
Current
permissions for any type of signage in these land uses, under the Permanent
Signs on Private Property By-law, is quite limited when compared to the City’s
commercial and industrial sectors. Given the nature of these land uses, there
is no justification to consider rooftop signs in these types of settings. These
are also the land uses where there may be more significant issues of
compatibility with respect to permissions of signage on abutting uses.
For
example, in the past number of years during consultation on proposed new signs;
it has been noted a growing number of residents have indicated their strong
objection to illuminated signs because of the impact the additional light
will have on their health, citing interrupted sleep and the loss
of the ability to enjoy their residential property. To
date, the By-law has addressed light trespass by requiring external lighting
that is downward facing rather than upward facing light sources. In
addition, illumination from ground and wall signs is also reduced by
other buildings and structures that block the direct light. One
must expect, therefore, that illuminated signs on rooftops would be less
obstructed from general view and therefore could be expected to have a
significant impact on residential properties.
5. Local and Community Commercial Areas
A
variety of signage is permitted in these types of land uses, with the exception
of billboards. Commonly the low-scale commercial plazas in these areas are
located abutting, or surrounded by residential uses, where the potential impact
of signage may be more apparent. It is usually in these circumstances where
additional sign regulations will apply (such as setbacks), so as to minimize
any impact on abutting residential lands with respect to visibility, scale and
lighting. Rooftop signs being inherently
more prominent would be overly dominant and be out of character with the area.
This might be particularly the case if there are numerous rooftop signs on one
building where there exist multiple tenancies.
6. Employment Areas
Employment
Areas of the Official Plan comprise industrial parks, light to heavy industrial
areas, and the related Macdonald-Cartier International Airport or Carp Road Corridor Rural Employment
Area. Rooftop signs located in
these designations may have less of a
negative impact on their surroundings. The development pattern of these
automobile-oriented areas is typically characterized by large parcel sizes;
reflective of user needs for indoor and outdoor storage, extensive parking and
loading areas. They are generally
located away from residential neighborhoods and pedestrian-oriented precincts;
therefore compatibility concerns are more limited. These areas already have the broadest
permissions for various types of signage, are usually well situated with
respect to major roads and therefore higher vehicle visibility, and are often
also locations for billboard signage.
However this does not mean that the City’s design objectives are not
considered in evaluating new development for these Employment Areas. In fact,
many of the City’s industrial business parks, such as the Ottawa Business Park
near Walkley Road, and the Carp Road Corridor in the rural area, are subject to
design guidelines which are intended to protect or improve any
established theme or desired appearance for such business enclaves or
industrial parks. Even in other
Employment Areas where urban design considerations are not as important
a factor to consider, signs continue to be an integral component of the overall
appearance of a building’s architecture.
7.
Agricultural Resource and General Rural Areas
The
General Rural Area and Agricultural Resource Area designations comprise the majority
of the City’s rural land mass. These are areas where there are farms and rural
residential properties, as well as some pockets of highway commercial and other
farm-based businesses.
There
are currently permissions for various forms of signage in these areas, and
again these areas tend to be more automobile-oriented, and land parcels are
quite large with few buildings. Staff have seen the occasional animal objects
on top of farm buildings in a number of rural areas outside Ottawa (Quebec and
Florida); and even along a rural highway in British Columbia; there is a well
known country market featuring live goats on the building’s grass-covered roof;
all intended to promote agri-businesses.
Signage in the City’s rural area has been previously the subject of
discussion at City Council; with recent reports dealing with billboards and
directional farm signage.
The
report regarding billboards was considered by City Council in 2005, during the
harmonization of the City’s former municipal sign by-laws. Billboards were
permitted in the rural areas; however the distances and separations proposed
were more restrictive than in commercial and industrial areas. This was due to
the impact of multiple or clusters of billboards on a rural environment that is
flat in most areas, and where vision is not otherwise obstructed by natural or
other built elements. Also, there was
concern that the proliferation of off premise signage (third party advertising
signs, aka billboards) would detract from all the efforts to profile and
promote rural tourism in Ottawa’s rural communities. It is anticipated that similar concerns would
apply to the introduction of rooftop signs in rural areas.
The
Directional Farm Signage Program approved by City Council in 2006:
i)
provided distinct signage to assist the
public in locating farm-based businesses in the rural area in recognition that
rural businesses are more difficult to locate; and
ii)
directed the tackling of the illegal
signs proliferation along rural roadways as these detract from the rural views
and render legitimate signs ineffectual.
Community Values
Community values are an important determinant when considering public policy with respect to the aesthetics of buildings and built environments. Ottawa was ranked first of best places to live in Canada in a recent magazine survey, and has a reputation as being a beautiful and clean city. These attributes are of prime importance to the City’s economic activities, through tourism and the attraction of new businesses; and is also a great source of pride to Ottawa residents.
Although the results of the City’s survey undertaken to gauge public opinion on rooftop signs was limited to a few hundred residents; the comments received reflected their apprehensions regarding the aesthetic appearance and visual impact of this type of signage. Ottawa residents who responded to the City’s survey felt that rooftop signs:
· could be unattractive, particularly sign box or billboard rooftop signs (there was much more positive reaction to the specific cow sign);
· may be more unsafe due to their exposure to high winds;
· could detract from visual cityscape or block views and access to sunlight; and
· could result in additional unwanted illumination.
For these reasons and others roof top signs would have a propensity to result in incompatible development. And at close range, rooftop signs impact the form of a building’s roofline and may affect the overall shape, massing and aesthetic of buildings; particularly since they are usually not integrated into a building’s design as they tend to be added on to existing buildings.
Economic Considerations
Signage is an important tool in supporting the economic vitality of the City’s business areas, and if done properly, can help enliven commercial areas. Signs provide cost effective advertising and assist in wayfinding for businesses.
Businesses may be of the opinion that restricting signage is taking away opportunities to attract customers. The success of on-premise signs in attracting new business is tied to their visibility, readability and the nature of the information being displayed. Small independent businesses, for which signage has traditionally been the most important communication vehicle, may have more difficulty compared to chain stores or franchises, which typically use signage that is well known and can more quickly be recognized.
However, more signage does not necessarily translate to increased business activity. There are many examples of municipalities placing very restrictive controls on design and signage that have resulted in successful districts and commercial corridors. Furthermore, municipal sign regulations would not likely deter new businesses from entering a local market, if there is a demand for the products in that area. The Cheddar et Cetera cheese shop operated for a number of years in Orléans without a rooftop sign before erecting the cow sign when the business moved to its new location. Sign controls help create a sense of place and character that promotes the identity of certain parts of the City, or even specific developments, and it is that identity that can make a place more desirable and hence more economically successful.
While providing appropriate
signage on a property will entice customers to the location; it is unknown if
the addition of rooftop signage, to the types of signage already permitted on
properties by the by-law; would necessarily translate into an increase the
number of persons shopping at that location. While perhaps there is an
advantage for a business that has the only rooftop sign in a shopping area; the inherent risk in allowing rooftop signs
generally is that it would spark the competitive nature of business
enterprise. Human nature perceives that
if one does not display equal signage, one could lose potential customers to
the competition. Unfortunately, this
could lead to a proliferation of rooftop signs in certain areas and undermine
the design objectives set out in the Official Plan to support and enhance the
visual quality of the City’s communities. It is usually not the impact of any
one business rooftop sign that would motivate a municipality to prohibit this
type of sign, but rather the long term cumulative impact of many private
signage decisions.
Currently there are several sign options available to businesses for identification and advertising such as wall, canopy, projecting, awning, ground and temporary signs. It isn’t evident that permitting an additional sign type generally in Ottawa will have lasting economic benefits overall.
Safety
Safety is an important consideration in considering municipal positions on signage. With respect to traffic safety, drivers use many roadside features, other than highway and street signs, for wayfinding. Commercial signage can be positive, helping drivers navigate in the case of on-premise signage; but in some circumstances, poorly designed signage can distract, and in other situations they may obscure other important information.
The report entitled “Context-Sensitive Signage Designs”, produced by the American Planners Association (June 2001), contains the following deficiencies in signage (both traffic related and commercial signage) that may create more driver disorientation and hence reduced safety:
· too much irrelevant information for traffic circumstances;
· too many competing signs masking visibility of needed information;
· missing wayfinding information (including on-premise signs);
· poor placement of signs (ie. outside the cone of vision); and
· inadequate legibility distance, given the traffic circumstances.
Much of the more recent research that has been undertaken related to commercial signage and traffic safety has focused on the possible effects of digital signage given this new sign medium is becoming more common place. However, the report noted above does indicate that generally simple sign messages are less distracting to drivers. Further, the use of graphics and icons or other objects reduces or eliminates reading time, thus effectively increasing the information processing of drivers, therefore making it safer in comparison to signs containing text.
No research documentation was found specifically focussing on the effects of rooftop signs on traffic safety. However, inference can be made on the basis of the deficiencies noted above in respect to rooftop signs:
a) permitting rooftop signs in addition to the types of signage already permitted (ground and wall signs) on a property, may just result in too many competing signs for drivers to process;
b) rooftop signs are by their very nature poorly placed signs; being located outside the cone of vision – the area in which a driver has a generally clear view of objects in and around the roadway; potentially distracting drivers from their view of the roadway; and
c) since rooftop signs would typically be a further distance away from the roadway, compared to ground or wall signs, they would be more difficult to read – size of lettering and font would have to be much larger, hence resulting in the need for larger signs to compensate.
Other than traffic safety, an important consideration is the potential danger to the public with respect to the improper construction, maintenance, location and installation of signs. Rooftop signs may, if not anchored properly to the roof, become a projectile as a result of their tendency to uplift during strong winds. The anchoring of such structures may damage the roof membrane and if ballast is used to anchor the structure, the roof design may not have taken such use into account and the structure may be damaged or compromised. However, it should be noted that this can be resolved through engineering assessment, during permit review.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the current general prohibition on rooftop signs be maintained, based on the foregoing discussion, for the following reasons:
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
The recommendation to continue
the prohibition of rooftop signs in all parts of the city, including the rural
area, has taken into account a number of factors related to the rural
context.
CONSULTATION
To solicit feedback from the public, a background issue paper was made available on ottawa.ca outlining the objectives of the review, current by-law regulations, issues for consideration and an on-line questionnaire. The results of the survey are detailed in Document 2. Public reaction to the on-line survey was overall generally against signs on the roof of buildings, in particular conventional flat sign panels or back illuminated sign boxes. The main concern expressed was the potential negative visual impact on building design, views and area land uses. There was support however to consider permitting unique objects, like the Cheddar Et Cetera cow, viewed as an interesting element that could add character to a neighbourhood.
In addition, the business owner of Cheddar Et Cetera compiled a survey of patrons, area residents, local businesses, and the public. At the time of the motion submitted by Councillor Monette, the petition had over 1000 signatures. To date the petition which was submitted to the City has accumulated over 9000 signatures in support of retaining the cow on the roof of the building.
N/A - this is a City-wide report.
There are no legal impediments to the implementation of this report's
recommendation. Case law regarding signage regulation demonstrates that
reasonable and proportional municipal regulation of the placement and location
of signs on a property is justifiable under Section 2(b) of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As stated by Staff in this Report, the proposed continuation of the roof top signs prohibition is based on important municipal objectives, among them the preservation of sightlines, the reduction of driver distraction and sign clutter, and ensuring the safety of persons and property. Furthermore, the placement of signage in other areas of a property (e.g. wall signs, ground signs) is permitted in accordance with applicable criteria in the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law, and therefore the prohibition of roof top signage does not overly restrict signage opportunities.
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct financial implications associated with this report.
N/A
The recommendation regarding the prohibition of rooftop signs is consistent with the Planning and Growth Management Priorities, Objective 1, to manage growth and create sustainable communities by:
·
ensuring that new growth is integrated
seamlessly with established communities.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 – Survey of Canadian Municipalities – Rooftop Signs
Document 2 – Consultation Details
DISPOSITION
N/A
SURVEY
OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES-ROOFTOP SIGNS DOCUMENT 1
Methodology
The focus of this study was to determine what best practices
are available when dealing with the complexity of regulating rooftop signage.
For this reason, a variety of Canadian municipalities were contacted across the
country, but substantial information was only received from 11 municipalities.
City officials from each municipality were interviewed with a list of
preselected questions pertaining to the presence of rooftop signage regulations
within their jurisdictions. The
questionnaire was targeted at operational staff processing sign applications,
administering sign by-laws or developing sign policy. Responses were recorded, organized, and compared thus
providing a comparative review of the manner in which other Canadian
municipalities address rooftop signage.
Given the political-geographical structure of the Halifax
Regional Municipality (HRM) and Montréal, where former municipal by-laws still
apply, only limited information was readily available.
Results of Municipality Survey
Municipalities Not Permitting Rooftop Signs - Tables 1 to 7 below
summarize the results of the survey of municipalities that do not permit
rooftop signs.
Table 1 – Question 1: Explain
the rationale for not permitting rooftop signs?
|
Vancouver |
HRM (Downtown) |
Mississauga |
Toronto |
Brampton |
Montreal (Côte-des- Neiges) |
|
In response to concerns
expressed by citizens about the proliferation and overcrowding of signs,
Vancouver City Council amended the Sign By-law such that as of 1970, rooftop
signs and billboards were prohibited, initially near bridges and freeway
approaches, then later extending to other areas. |
Design based, due to the
aesthetic, pedestrian- oriented streetscapes. |
Aesthetics |
Visual Impact. Goal was to
improve the public realm as part of a comprehensive approach, so as to clean up
the streetscape, parks, and buildings. |
Mainly for aesthetic
purposes |
Because
of quality of landscapes and public spaces. |
Table 2 – Question
2: Was zoning or land use considered in determining whether rooftop signs
should be permitted?
|
Vancouver |
HRM (Downtown) |
Mississauga |
Toronto |
Brampton |
Montreal (Côte-des- Neiges) |
|
No |
Not aware |
Yes |
No. Engineers would ensure
safety issues, so it was more the visual impact. |
Unaware, but believe it was
related to aesthetics. |
No |
Table 3 – Question 3: Was the visual impact on area land use a consideration?
|
Vancouver |
HRM (Downtown) |
Mississauga |
Toronto |
Brampton |
Montreal (Côte-des- Neiges) |
|
Yes the intent was to
showcase architecture and nature. Rooftop signage blocked the view of these
features. |
Yes |
The zoning and its use
would be considered to determine whether or not a rooftop sign would be
permitted. |
Yes |
This is believed to be the
main consideration for not allowing rooftop signs. |
Yes. Signs detract from the quality of space. |
Table 4 – Question 4: Are rooftop signs considered to detract from the overall appearance of the city?
|
Vancouver |
HRM (Downtown) |
Mississauga |
Toronto |
Brampton |
Montreal (Côte-des- Neiges) |
|
Yes. Mountains and
architecture in Vancouver take precedent! |
Did not respond |
Did not respond |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Table 5: Question 5 – Are enforcement violations related to rooftop signs recorded? If so, how many occurrences?
|
Vancouver |
HRM (Downtown) |
Mississauga |
Toronto |
Brampton |
Montreal (Côte-des- Neiges) |
|
Enforcement is reactive. The
City will only inspect a site via a resident's complaint. |
Yes |
Sign unit was created in
2002. Violations occur very seldom, the Bylaw has been challenged numerous
times under the Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However
the Bylaw has won every time. More resources are needed to effectively
monitor all complaints. |
They would be recorded;
however our move to prohibit rooftop signage has only been implemented in the
past year and a half. Rooftop signs that exist currently pre-date the bylaw. There
have not been any new ones built since the implementation of the bylaw. |
No major violations. |
No
violations. But, two significant cases which relate to signs: 1.
In the 1980s, provincial law banned
commercial signs within 100 m of highways. However, since lands along
railways are federal, the federal government permits these signs in keeping
with the Charter of the Canadian Pacific Railway. 2. Existing signs cannot
establish non-complying rights. Also, change of ownership of businesses
includes a revaluation of signs. |
Table 6: Question 6 – Are you aware of a study or upcoming report to consider rooftop signs in 2010-2011?
|
Vancouver |
HRM (Downtown) |
Mississauga |
Toronto |
Brampton |
Montreal (Côte-des- Neiges) |
|
A workshop will be held by
City of Vancouver officials in June of 2011 to strategize on the best way to
move forward with a review of the Signs By-law. |
Did not respond |
Did not respond |
No. We have gone from
permitting them to prohibiting them. |
No |
Not
in Côte-des-Neiges. |
Table 7: Question 7 – How has the city benefitted from not permitting rooftop signs?
|
Vancouver |
HRM (Downtown) |
Mississauga |
Toronto |
Brampton |
Montreal (Côte-des- Neiges) |
|
More attractive city. The
primary role of signage is to locate businesses. There is limited
opportunity for 3rd party advertising. |
Pedestrian atmosphere
protected. |
Cleaner looking city. |
Improved public realm.
Clean views. |
Yes, minimizes complaints
and keeps the city aesthetically pleasing. |
Unevaluated |
Municipalities Permitting Rooftop Signs - Tables 8 to 19 below
summarize the results of the survey among municipalities which do permit
rooftop signs.
Table 8 - Question 1: Are rooftop signs regulated in a by-law?
|
Calgary |
Edmonton |
HRM (Peninsula) |
Kingston |
London |
St. Catharines |
|
Zoning by-law IP 2007 (Part
10-Division 8). |
Zoning By-Law 12800, s59. |
Zoning By-law edition 192. |
By-Law 2009-140 - To Provide for
the Prohibition and Regulation of Signs and Other Devices. |
Sign and Canopy By-law S-3775-94
(Mar-09-09) - 10.1 (i). |
By-Law 2008-302 as amended by
2009-107- For Regulating the Erection of Signs and Other Advertising Devices. |
Table 9 – Question 2: Is zoning or land use considered in determining whether a rooftop sign should be permitted?
|
Calgary |
Edmonton |
HRM (Peninsula) |
Kingston |
London |
St. Catharines |
|
Yes. Zoning Bylaw IP 2007,
Part 10-Division 8, s60(2a) - shall only be located in a commercial,
industrial district, or a public service district. |
Yes. Roof signs (on/off
premises) have restrictions as to the various types of land uses where they
are permitted. |
Yes. Permitted in
commercial zones, not residential. There are no setback requirements from
zones. |
Yes. By-law 2009-140, s6.3.
Rooftop and billboard signs are prohibited in heritage designated areas and
in Business Improvement Areas. Rooftop signs are only
permitted in commercial, industrial, or institutional type zones with
additional restrictions. |
By-law S3775-94, Table 4.1
(a) and (b) - outlines each permitted sign in each type of land use. |
Yes. By-law 2008-302
s4.3(e) - rooftop signs are prohibited in residential zones or within 8 m of
any residential zone. |
Table 10 – Question
3: Is a building permit or an engineering stamp required?
|
Calgary |
Edmonton |
HRM (Peninsula) |
Kingston |
London |
St. Catharines |
|
Bylaw IP 2007, Part 10 - Division
8, s57(1) - permits are required for rooftop and illuminated signs. A stamp
is not required. |
By-law 12800, s13.4(g) - detailed
plans imprinted with the stamp or seal of a professional engineer is required
for sign applications. |
Zoning Bylaw edition 192,
16DA(5) - the Development Officer may
require a copy of the detailed drawings that are sealed and signed by an
Engineer or licensed Architect. Drawings would include specifications, and
calculations related to the sign and the supporting building. |
By-law 2009-140 s2.3 - all
signs must comply with the Ontario Building Code. S3.2. Applications for sign
permits are submitted to the Building and Licensing Department. S3.3, -applications
must include proper plans and specifications for the sign. |
Yes. By-law S3775-94, s2.1. |
By-law 2008-308, s2.3(d) - designs
for roof signs greater than 10 square metres must be prepared by a
professional engineer. S2.3(b) - designs must be prepared by a person with
technical competencies. |
Table 11 – Question 4: Is there a maximum size for rooftop signs (area, height, etc.)?
|
Calgary |
Edmonton |
HRM (Peninsula) |
Kingston |
London |
St. Catharines |
|
Bylaw IP 2007, Part 10 - Division
8, s60(2b) - not to exceed the maximum
building height of the land use district in which they are located. s60(2c) -
area of all roof signs on each face of a building not to exceed 1/40 of the
area formed by multiplying the clearance of the sign by the width of the
building. |
By-law 12800, (Schedule
59D.2/59E.2/59G) - area and height are determined by whether or not the roof sign
is on-premise or off-premise, and its location (by zone). |
16DA(9) - no sign or
advertisement more than 1.4 m high across the face shall be located on the
roof of any building. The bottom of any such sign shall not be nearer than
150 mm nor more than 450 mm above the roof. |
By-law 2009-140, [Schedule
R-3, 1] - height shall not exceed 20 ft above roof and must not contravene
height regulations of the Zoning By-law. [Schedule R-3, 3] - area not to
exceed 18.6 square metres per face (side). Angle shall not exceed 60 degrees. |
By-law S3775-94, s5.2 (i) - the highest part of
the facial wall sign shall not exceed the lesser of 6 metres or the highest part of the roof,
and (ii) the maximum sign face
area of the facial wall sign when added to the area of all other facial wall
signs located on the same wall of a building shall not exceed the maximum
sign face limitations of Table 5.2. |
By-law 2008-302, s4.5(a) -rooftop
sign cannot exceed 11.1 square metres. Exceptions are development signs no
greater than 25 square metres, and third
party signs no greater than 7.43 square metres |
Table 12: Question 5 – Is the content of the sign regulated?
|
Calgary |
Edmonton |
HRM (Peninsula) |
Kingston |
London |
St. Catharines |
|
The City cannot control the
content of the copy displayed on the sign.
That gets into issues of commercial freedom of expression which came
up in the case with Oakville. A city could regulate digital signs to be text
only (no images) or require the text be a minimum height – but could not
outright ban types of speech. |
There is a differentiation
in the sign regulations between content advertising, something sold on the
property (on-premises sign) versus content for a product not sold on the
property (off-premises sign). Signs
with on-premises content have different regulations than signs with
off-premises content. The City is
contemplating a different approach for digital signs. |
Yes. Third party
advertising is prohibited in some zones. |
No, with the exception of
rules regarding “off premise” signs and where they are allowed. |
No |
No, there is no indication
within By-Law 2008-302 referring to the regulation of content. |
Table 13: Question 6 – Does the content of the sign have to relate to land use on-site? Is third party advertising permitted?
|
Calgary |
Edmonton |
HRM (Peninsula) |
Kingston |
London |
St. Catharines |
|
Bylaw IP 2007, Part 10 - Division
8, s62(2h) - a third party advertisement sign shall not be located on or
attached to a roof. |
Off-premise roof signs are
permitted. Must be setback from other off-premise roof signs by 100 m up to
300 m depending on size of sign. |
Third party advertising is
only prohibited in some zones (namely residential) and at some specific uses
such as bed and breakfasts. |
Third party advertising is quite restrictive. For example, they are not
permitted in the Downtown Business Improvement Area. |
Yes, with restrictions set
out in Table 7.1 of By-law S3775-94. There is also a separate permit
application for non-accessory signs. |
By-law 2008-302, s5.5 - third
party advertising is permitted with provisions for and limitations to size,
and proximity to land uses. |
Table 14 – Question 7: How has the public benefitted from allowing rooftop signs?
|
Calgary |
Edmonton |
HRM (Peninsula) |
Kingston |
London |
St. Catharines |
|
The benefits have not been formally
evaluated. |
The benefits have not been
formally evaluated. Roof signs contribute to the character of an area, has
potential to improve advertising opportunities, allows for businesses to
diversify their income base, and are sometimes used for public education. |
Did not respond |
The benefits include better
visibility at ground level, since roof signs are used in lieu of ground signs. |
Did not respond |
Did not respond |
Table 15 – Question 8: What has been the general response from the community regarding the presence of rooftop signs (complaints, praise, etc.)?
|
Calgary |
Edmonton |
HRM (Peninsula) |
Kingston |
London |
St. Catharines |
|
Rooftop signs have received
no praise or complaints. However, community is calling for a ban on digital
signs. |
The city does not track
positive feedback and has received one formal complaint for a temporary roof
sign which did not have a permit. |
Did not respond |
At meetings, it was an item raised as something
needing more restrictions. Not favoured for the most part. |
Did not respond |
Did not respond |
Table 16 – Question 9: Is the enforcement of rooftop signs proactive or reactive?
|
Calgary |
Edmonton |
HRM (Peninsula) |
Kingston |
London |
St. Catharines |
|
It is reactive mainly due
to resources. Calgary has not been
immune to the financial challenges of the past few years, and so Calgary had
to focus our resources as best as possible. |
It is reactive -complaint
based efforts. |
Reactive - complaint
driven. |
Proactive, however, the
City tends not to find the new signs until a complaint is received which
results in reactive enforcement. Usually, complaints pertain
to signs installed without a permit, or which do not meet the provisions of
the bylaw. |
Enforcement is proactive. |
Did not respond |
Table 17 – Question 10: Has enforcement action for a rooftop sign ever resulted in legal action?
|
Calgary |
Edmonton |
HRM (Peninsula) |
Kingston |
London |
St. Catharines |
|
No legal case to date. |
There are no known cases at
this time. |
There has been a long
process of enforcement, but to the best of staff’s knowledge, none have resulted in court
action. |
Not for roof signs, but, there
have been several charges in front of the court for illegal placement or
building without a permit for “A” frame signs in the past. However,
compliance has been gained since the City’s blitz. Orders have been issued for illegal mobile
signs. |
No
legal actions have been taken. |
Did
not respond |
Table 18 – Question 11: Does the City consider requests or applications for exceptions to the size, location, etc. of rooftop signs through a minor variance or other administrative process?
|
Calgary |
Edmonton |
HRM (Peninsula) |
Kingston |
London |
St. Catharines |
|
Calgary’s Land Use Bylaw is
a Development Control Bylaw, not zoning.
So the way the rules are structured, any rule regarding how roof signs
are regulated (in Section 103) can be relaxed (varied) provided that the
rationale submitted by the applicant could be supported. In development control, staff rely more on
policy to direct decision making (in
addition to the bylaw rules). In the
case of signs, there isn’t much of a policy basis to rely on. |
Yes. By-law 2009-140, s59.3(3)
– the Development Officer can grant variances to the Comprehensive Sign
Design Plan if it is consistent with the provisions of this section of the
By-law. |
There is a variance process
which is outlined by the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter. Variances are
not granted for height or area. |
Yes. By-law 2009-140, s3.13,
for exemptions - applications are made to the Clerk's Office, appeal is made
to Council. |
By-law S3775-94, sS13.2 - a
variance process exists. |
By-law 2008-302, s2.1 - a
variance process does exist. |
Table 19 – Question 12: Is the approval of such requests for exceptions through a Committee of Council or under delegated authority to staff?
|
Calgary |
Edmonton |
HRM (Peninsula) |
Kingston |
London |
St. Catharines |
|
All permits for signs are
done through a Development Authority decision – staff make the decision to
approve or refuse the permit application.
Roof signs are considered discretionary applications and so even if
the rules are met, if there is sufficient planning rationale to refuse the
permit, staff can do that. The permit
is also subject to appeal if approved.
Any appeal is heard by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board. |
The Development Officer has
variance power and may use it. |
Development Officer gives
approval or denial and appeals are heard by Council. |
By-law 2009-140, s3.13 -Clerk's
office will review the matter and forward to Council in order to determine if
the matter will be considered by Council. |
By-law S3775-94, s13.3(d) -
variances may be authorized by the General Manager of the Planning and
Development Department or by his designate. s13.3(g) - an appeal can be made to the Planning
Committee. s13.3(g)(i) -Council may uphold or vary the recommendation of the
Planning Committee. Decision of Council is final. |
By-law 2008-302, s2.12 - applications
are made to and decided by Council |
PUBLIC CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 2
As directed by Council to undertake public consultation, a
survey was conducted to gauge public opinion on the current
rooftop sign debate within the City of Ottawa. To inform the public of this survey:
1.
A Public
Service Announcement was released to the media and sent by e-mail or first
class mail to all community groups in the City (approximately 250 groups who
are registered with the City to receive notice of development matters), and to
any other persons who indicated an interest in the matter.
2.
The announcement provided a link on the City’s webpage
to a discussion paper and questionnaire; the latter which the
public was able to complete on-line or send in by mail. The documents were also
available by calling 311 or for pick-up at the City’s Client Service Centres.
The survey was conducted during the months of March and April 2011 and it
allowed residents to answer specific questions and provide comments on rooftop
signage in Ottawa. A total of 261 surveys were completed.
The following table provides an overview of
the public survey response rate per geographic ward grouping.
Table 20: Public Survey Response Rate by Geographic Ward Grouping
|
Geographic Ward
Grouping |
Total Number of Responses |
Percentage of Survey Responses |
|
Downtown/Inner
Core |
31 |
12% |
|
Outer Core |
51 |
20% |
|
West Urban |
8 |
3% |
|
South Urban |
24 |
9% |
|
East Urban |
84 |
32% |
|
Rural |
14 |
5% |
|
Other |
49 |
19% |
|
Total |
261 |
100% |
In the case where residents did not provide their address or postal
code and thereby could not be grouped into a specific ward; or whose addresses
were outside of the city boundaries (11 were from out of town), these survey
results were classified as “other”.
The geographic ward groupings were based on the following geographic
areas:
Downtown/Inner Core Wards
12, 14, 15, 17
Outer Core Ward 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18 (no
responses from Ward 8)
West Urban Ward 4 and 23 (no responses from Ward 6)
South Urban Ward 3, 22
East Urban Ward 1, 2, 19 urban
Rural Ward 5, 19 rural, 20 and 21
Other Out of town, anonymous
Seven questions required a response of either “Yes” or “No”, along with
six sub questions asking for further comments if a respondent replied “Yes”.
The comments with respect to Question 1 were reviewed in order to determine whether
the impact of rooftop sign was positive or negative. A comment was deemed
positive if it was a statement that viewed rooftop signage as being beneficial
to the community, whereas a comment was deemed negative if it was a statement
which viewed rooftop signage as being a nuisance or detrimental to the
community. Once tabulated, the results were organized by geographic groupings
of wards, and were based on the respondent’s address or postal code. Question 8
was an opportunity to provide any additional comments and these comments have
been summarized in this document. Not all respondents answered every question
therefore the response rate for questions 1-7 ranged from 253 to 261 responses.
The following table provides a summary of the responses to Questions 1
to 7 of the public consultation survey.
Table 21: Summary of
Responses to Rooftop Signs Public Consultation Survey
|
Question* |
Response |
Down- town/ Inner Core |
Outer Core |
West Urban |
South Urban |
East Urban |
Rural |
Other |
Overall |
|
1. Community impact |
Positive |
3%
(1) |
4% (2) |
0% (0) |
4% (1) |
14% (12) |
16% (2) |
5%
(2) |
8% (20) |
|
Negative |
77% (23) |
61% (31) |
62% (5) |
74% (17) |
14% (12) |
46% (6) |
42% (19) |
45% (113) |
|
|
Positive and Negative |
0% (0) |
10% (5) |
25% (2) |
0% (0) |
13% (11) |
0% (0) |
2% (1) |
7% (19) |
|
|
No Impact |
20% (6) |
25% (13) |
13% (1) |
22% (5) |
59% (49) |
38% (5) |
51% (23) |
40% (102) |
|
|
2. New businesses only? |
Yes |
3%
(1) |
4% (2) |
0% (0) |
13% (3) |
10% (8) |
15% (2) |
8%
(4) |
6%
(14) |
|
No |
97% (29) |
96% (49) |
100% (8) |
87% (21) |
90% (76) |
85% (11) |
92% (45) |
94% (239) |
|
|
3. Allow on temporary
basis? |
Yes |
16% (5) |
22% (11) |
13% (1) |
29% (7) |
55% (46) |
31% (4) |
65% (32) |
40% (106) |
|
No |
84% (26) |
78% (40) |
87% (7) |
71% (17) |
45% (37) |
69% (9) |
35% (17) |
60% (153) |
|
|
4. Permit in commercial
zones? |
Yes |
23% (7) |
41% (21) |
13% (1) |
25% (6) |
87% (73) |
54% (7) |
55% (27) |
55% (142) |
|
No |
77%
(24) |
59% (30) |
87% (7) |
75% (18) |
13% (11) |
46% (6) |
45% (22) |
45% (118) |
|
|
5. If permitted,
setback from roof line? |
Yes |
73% (22) |
53% (27) |
75% (6) |
63% (15) |
52% (44) |
38% (5) |
47% (23) |
55% (143) |
|
No |
27% (8) |
47% (24) |
25% (2) |
37% (9) |
48% (40) |
62% (8) |
53% (26) |
45% (116) |
|
|
6. If permitted, setback from residential land
use? |
Yes |
73% (22) |
71% (36) |
87% (7) |
92% (22) |
51% (43) |
62% (8) |
54% (26) |
64% (143) |
|
No |
27% (8) |
29% (15) |
13% (1) |
8% (2) |
49% (41) |
38% (5) |
46% (22) |
36% (116) |
|
|
7. Permit illumination? |
Yes |
17% (5) |
25% (13) |
0% (0) |
8% (2) |
45% (38) |
54% (7) |
75% (36) |
39% (101) |
|
No |
83% (25) |
75% (38) |
100% (8) |
92% (22) |
55% (46) |
46% (6) |
25% (12) |
61% (157) |
* Questions that were asked and summarized in Table 21 are as follows:
1.
Do you think signs or advertising related objects installed on the roof
of buildings would impact your community?
2.
Do you think only new businesses should be permitted a rooftop sign for
a fixed term
(ex. 3 months)?
3.
Do you think temporary rooftop signs should be permitted?
4.
Do you think rooftop signs should be allowed in commercial areas?
5.
If permitted, should rooftop signs be setback from the front roof line?
6.
If permitted, should rooftop signs be setback from residential land use?
7.
Should rooftop signs be lit?
The following is a summary of the comments on rooftop signs provided by
respondents. Comments were obtained through the additional comments section of
the survey to Questions 1 and 8. The bracketed numbers (#), denotes the
occurrence of the comment among respondents.
Aesthetics and
Community Impact
·
enhances character and
uniqueness of community (17)
·
creates visual clutter (37)
·
diminishes the
attractiveness of the City and disturbs the public (107)
·
creates visual/light
pollution (21)
Regulations
·
permissions should differentiate
by land use (8)
·
allow roof top signs with
restrictions to size, number, illumination (if applicable), etc. (57)
Economic
Considerations
·
creates employment (roofing
and signs industry) (1)
·
distinguishes local
businesses and attracts customers to commercial areas (24)
Safety
·
creates visual
distraction for motorists (20)
·
creates possible
hazards for pedestrians and residents (14)
Other
·
in support of keeping
the cow (39)
·
rooftop signs should be
permitted (no rational provided) (16)
·
roof top signs should
not be permitted (no rationale provided) (21)
·
miscellaneous (54)
Additional
Comments Received Though Other Means Than Survey
·
in light of negligible
public interest with the issue of roof signs (in the manner raised by the
Councillor for Orléans) and the massive implications on a larger community
planning basis – Council should re-evaluate whether to proceed with study
·
discussion paper on web
site should have provided results of survey of other municipalities
·
residents of specific
parts of the city should have the ability to decide on rooftop signs from their
community, what might be acceptable in Orléans, may not be appropriate for Old
Ottawa South
·
save the cow
·
this matter is a waste
of time and resources
·
the sign assists the
small business
·
culturally the cow
represents Eastern Ontario farmers
·
an exception should be
made to this small business