|
1. BILLBOARD
ADVERTISING
|
That Council:
1.
Approve the award
of contract and as owner of the lands, authorize the installation of the
specific type of sign detailed for each site outlined in Appendix “A”, as
amended by the following:
·
That 135
Preston Street – Fire Station be deleted from Appendix A.
2.
Approve the
proposals for the sites outlined in Appendix “B”, with the use of smaller
street ad signs and not billboards where applicable, and as amended by the
following:
·
That 241
Centrum Blvd. be deleted from Appendix B.
3.
Reject the
proposals for the sites outlined in Appendix “C”, for signs that do not meet
all of the requirements of the Signs By-law;
4. Approve the Request for Proposal (RFP) process as the selected
method to expand the billboard program and the future award of contracts for
billboards and street ad signs that comply with City signs and zoning
by-laws.
Que le Conseil :
1.
Approuve
l’attribution du contrat et, en tant que propriétaire des terres, autorisent
l'installation du type d’enseigne propre à chaque site, tel que décrit à
l'annexe A, modifiée par l’ajout de ce qui
suit :
·
Que la caserne de pompiers du 135,
rue Preston soit supprimée de l’annexe A.
2. Approuve les propositions concernant les
emplacements mentionnés à l’annexe B, prévoyant l’utilisation de petites
enseignes de rue plutôt que de panneaux réclames dans la mesure du possible, et
modifiée par l’ajout de ce qui suit :
·
Que le 241, boul. Centrum soit
supprimé de l’annexe B.
3. Rejette les propositions pour les sites
décrits à l’annexe C, pour les enseignes qui ne répondent pas à toutes les
exigences du Règlement municipal sur les enseignes;
4. Approuve le processus de demande de
proposition (DDP) en tant que méthode choisie pour développer le programme de
panneaux-réclames et l’attribution future de contrats pour les
panneaux-réclames et les enseignes publicitaires de rue qui sont conformes aux
règlements sur les enseignes et le zonage.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
Chief
Corporate Services Officer’s report dated 12 June 2006
(ACS2006-CRS-CSO-0002).
2. Extract of Draft Minute, 20 June 2006 will be
issued separately prior to the Council meeting of 28 June 2006.
Report to/Rapport au :
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
Comité des services organisationnels
et du développement économique
and Council / et au Conseil
12 June 2006 / le 12 juin 2006
Submitted by/Soumis par : Greg Geddes, Chief Corporate Services
Officer/Chef des Services généraux
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : Jane Wright, Manager/gestionnaire,
Strategic & Business
Initiatives/Initiatives strategiques et d'affaires
(613) 580-2424 x24340, Jane.Wright@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
publicitÉ de panneau d'affichage |
That the Corporate Services
and Economic Development Committee and Council:
1. Approve the award of contract and as
owner of the lands, authorize the installation of the specific type of sign
detailed for each site outlined in Appendix “A”;
2. Consider the proposals of the sites
outlined in Appendix “B”, for signs that do not meet all requirements of the
Signs By-law and specific design guidelines;
3. Reject the proposals for the sites
outlined in Appendix “C”, for signs that do not meet all of the requirements of
the Signs By-law;
4. Approve the Request for Proposal (RFP) process as the selected method to expand the billboard program and the future award of contracts for billboards and street ad signs that comply with City signs and zoning by-laws.
Que le Comité des services organisationnels et
du développement économique et le Conseil :
1. Approuvent
l’attribution du contrat et, en tant que propriétaire des terres, autorisent
l'installation du type d’enseigne propre à chaque site, tel que décrit à
l'annexe A;
2. Prennent
en considération les propositions pour les sites décrits à l’annexe B, pour les enseignes qui ne répondent pas à
toutes les exigences du Règlement municipal sur les enseignes et certaines
lignes directrices en matière de conception;
3. Rejettent
les propositions pour les sites décrits à l’annexe C, pour les enseignes qui ne
répondent pas à toutes les exigences du Règlement municipal sur les enseignes;
4. Approuvent
le processus de demande de proposition (DDP) en tant que méthode choisie pour
développer le programme de panneaux-réclames et l’attribution future de
contrats pour les panneaux-réclames et les enseignes publicitaires de rue qui
sont conformes aux règlements sur les enseignes et le zonage.
During the
2005 budget process, City Council directed staff to seek out advertising
opportunities to determine potential revenue from City properties and other
assets.
On September 28, 2005 City Council approved a staff recommendation to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit bids for billboard and street ad advertising signs located on suitable City property.
On December 1, 2005 the City released a Request for Proposal (RFP), inviting qualified firms to explore the viability of selected City-owned properties and to submit proposals for the exclusive right to install billboard and/or street ad units, and provide management services for billboard and/or street ad advertising on specific properties approved by City Council. The RFP was posted on the internet based MERX distribution network and closed February 15 2006.
In response to the RFP, the City received two responsive proposals which included applications for 48 billboard and street ad signs throughout the city. The value of the 40 sign proposals totalled more than $2.1 million over a five-year period, and affected 14 of the 22 wards.
As outlined in the “Mandatory Requirements” section of the RFP, the proposed sites were required to be in compliance with City signs and zoning by-laws, and the billboard and/or street ad units could not obstruct or impede the delivery of City services.
The City conducted sign permit investigations on each of the 40 proposed properties. As a result of this evaluation and screening process, the billboard sign potential has been reduced to 24 signs at 23 locations spread across 11 City wards, and has an estimated value of approximately $1.4 million over a five-year period.
The purpose of this report is to advise on the outcome of the competitive process and to provide the necessary details that will enable Council to make an informed decision about billboard signage on City-owned property.
RÉSUMÉ
Dans le cadre du processus budgétaire de 2005, le Conseil municipal a
enjoint le personnel de la Ville à rechercher des créneaux publicitaires
permettant d’établir des sources possibles de revenu provenant de propriétés de
la Ville et autres actifs.
Le 28 septembre
2005, le Conseil municipal a approuvé une recommandation afin de publier une
demande de proposition (DDP) dans le but de lancer un appel d’offres pour des
panneaux-réclames et des enseignes publicitaires de rue situés sur des
propriétés de la Ville propices à une telle utilisation.
Le 1er décembre
2005, la Ville a publié une demande de proposition (DDP) invitant les firmes
qualifiées à étudier à fond la viabilité de propriétés sélectionnées
appartenant à la Ville et à soumettre des propositions pour le droit exclusif
d’installer des panneaux-réclames et/ou des unités d’enseignes publicitaires de
rue et d’offrir des services de gestion pour les panneaux-réclames et les
enseignes publicitaires de rue sur des propriétés spécifiques approuvées par le
Conseil municipal. La DDP a été affichée sur le réseau de distribution par
Internet MERX et a pris fin le 15 février 2006.
En réponse à la DDP, la Ville a reçu deux propositions recevables qui
comprenaient des utilisations spécifiques pour 48 panneaux-réclames et
enseignes publicitaires de rue à travers la Ville. La valeur des quarante
enseignes incluses dans les propositions totalisait plus de 2,1 millions de
dollars sur une période quinquennale et touchait 14 des 22 quartiers.
Tel qu’indiqué dans la section des « exigences obligatoires » de
la DDP, les sites proposés devaient être conformes aux règlements sur les
enseignes et le zonage de la Ville et les panneaux-réclames et/ou les unités
publicitaires de rue ne pouvaient pas faire obstruction ou gêner la prestation
des services municipaux.
La Ville a mené des enquêtes de permis d’enseigne pour chacune des 40
propriétés proposées. À la suite de cette évaluation et de cette présélection,
les panneaux-réclames potentiels ont été réduits à 24 enseignes réparties dans
23 emplacements à travers 11 quartiers de la ville pour une valeur estimée
d’environ 1,4 million de dollars sur une période quinquennale.
Le but de ce
rapport est d’émettre un avis quant aux résultats du concours et de fournir les
détails nécessaires qui permettront au Conseil de prendre une décision éclairée
concernant l’affichage d’enseignes à l’échelle de la Ville.
BACKGROUND
During the 2005 budget process, City Council approved the following motion:
Disposition 27 – January 25, 2005
Moved by Councillor R. Bloess
Seconded by Councillor E. El-Chantiry
WHEREAS the
Opportunity Log identified during the 2004 budget process that advertising
revenue was an option for the City to deal with 2005 budget pressures;
AND WHEREAS a
sponsorship strategy is still in development and has not been finalized;
AND WHEREAS staff
was directed to seek out advertising opportunities;
AND WHEREAS
advertising firms have expressed an interest in signage locations in Ottawa and
revenues potentially range from $2 million to $3 million (lump sum) for 2005
with annual revenue stream of $300,000 to $400,000 commencing in 2005;
BE IT RESOLVED that
staff identify advertising approaches to be pursued for 2005 to determine the
potential revenue from City properties and other assets such as the waste
collection calendar.
In response to this directive, staff collaborated in the development of a comprehensive sponsorship policy, the first step to realizing benefits of a strategic approach to sponsorship and advertising activities.
On July 13, 2005 City Council approved the Corporate Sponsorship and Advertising Policy and received a staff report and proposed work plan to pursue sponsorship and advertising opportunities over the next 12 to 18 month period. At this same meeting, City Council received an information report on the Opportunity Log and 2005 service delivery improvements savings target and an estimate of $1.5 million was projected as new revenues from sponsorship and advertising activities.
On September 28, 2005 City Council approved a staff recommendation to issue an RFP to solicit bids for billboard and street ad advertising signs located on suitable City property.
The purpose of this report is to advise on the outcome of this competitive process and to provide the necessary details that will enable Council to make an informed decision about billboard signage on City-owned property.
DISCUSSION
Utilizing City property to generate potential revenues through billboard advertising has long been identified as an opportunity. Through unsolicited proposals, advertising firms have expressed interest in joint venture signage on City owned land with significant potential revenue streams for the City. On September 28 2005, City Council approved a staff recommendation to initiate a process to explore the merit of billboard advertising on City property. The intent of this directive was to gain a better understanding of the impacts on the community, the streetscape, any social costs and the net financial benefits that could be realized by the City.
Before settling on a course of action, the City invited members of the sign industry to attend an information session and to offer feedback on the City’s methodology; including the approach to identify potential sites, and the proposed selection and award process. As a result of these discussions, the project timelines were extended to allow sufficient time to research and identify suitable sites and, the scope was expanded to include smaller, pedestrian oriented street ad signs.
On December 1, 2005, the City released an RFP, inviting qualified firms to explore the viability of selected City owned properties and to submit proposals for the exclusive right to install billboard and/or street ad units, and provide management services for billboard and/or street ad advertising on specific properties approved by City Council. The RFP was posted on the internet based MERX distribution network and closed February 15, 2006.
Highlights of the Request for
Proposal
Objectives:
To maximize advertising revenue opportunities while safeguarding the corporate values, image, assets, and community interests.
Submission
Requirements:
The Proponent was required to submit:
1. An overview of the proposal including: the location plans; the technical description and architectural features of the signs; identification of any value-added services/features; a business plan detailing how advertising opportunities would be identified and contracts awarded and enforced; and, the guaranteed annual revenues that would be realized by the City over the period of the contract.
2. A completed sign permit application for each billboard unit proposed, and a non-refundable deposit, by way of certified cheque in the amount of $750.00 ($500.00 for street ad signs) to partially offset sign permit application fees.
3. Certification of financial viability as proof of capacity to undertake the contract.
Mandatory
Requirement:
Proposals were required to meet the conditions of the City Signs and Zoning by-laws, specifically the "Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law" (By-law 2005-439). This by-law sets out specific scale, setback, illumination and related provisions for signs as enabled under the Municipal Act, that restrictions for billboard signs on land uses deemed appropriate in specific zones of the Zoning By-law. The by-law also protects adjacent less intensive uses (e.g. a billboard unit alongside a residential area) as well as respecting the design guidelines for the streetscape of traditional main streets, villages, places of national significance and buildings with heritage designations. Excerpts of By-law 2005-439 are listed in Appendix “D”.
Selection
and Approval Process:
Proposals that met the mandatory requirements were considered for evaluation and a minimum score of 75% on the rated evaluation criteria had to be achieved in order to have financial offers considered. The selection of proponent(s) was made on the basis of “best overall value” to the City in terms of services and highest guaranteed revenue, by site.
Period of
Contract:
To be consistent with the requirements of the City Signs By-law 2005-439, proponents were advised that a maximum time limit of five years would be placed on contracts involving the installation of billboard and/or street ad units.
Risks:
Proponents were advised that the City reserved the right to accept or reject any or all proposals should it be deemed in the best interest of the City and that City Council could, at its discretion, terminate the pursuit of this initiative, in whole or in part.
Proposal Submissions
In response to the RFP, the City received two regrets and three proposals, one of which was deemed non-responsive and given no further consideration. The two remaining proposals from Pattison Outdoor Advertising and Viacom Outdoor Canada included applications for 48 billboard and street ad signs throughout the city. Duplicate applications were received for eight locations therefore the proposals containing the lowest financial offers were eliminated, leaving a total of 40 applications to be investigated and considered. The value of the 40 sign proposals totalled more than $2.1 million over a five-year period, and affected 14 of the 22 wards.
As outlined in the “Mandatory Requirements” section of the RFP, the proposed sites were required to be in compliance with City signs and zoning by-laws, and the billboard and/or street ad units could not obstruct or impede the delivery of City services.
The City conducted sign permit investigations on each of the 40 proposed properties. Thirteen proposals and sign applications were rejected due to zoning regulations. Three other proposals were confirmed to be in conflict with the by-law requirements for billboards. However, this conflict would be eliminated if they were replaced with street ad signs. Since the RFP conditions stipulated that signs comply with the by-law without variance, it is recommended that these three proposals also be rejected. However, Council may wish to consider the option to install street ad signs at these sites.
As a result of the evaluation and screening process, the billboard sign potential has been reduced to 24 signs and has an estimated value of approximately $1.4 million over a five-year period. The sign proposals have been grouped into three categories based on compliance with City by-laws and design guidelines and form the basis for the report recommendations, which are summarized in the following table.
|
Recommendation |
# of signs |
Estimated Revenue |
||
APPROVE |
Recommendation 1 (Appendix A) |
12 |
$606,190 |
|
|
CONSIDER |
Recommendation 2 (Appendix B) |
Sign proposals do not comply with all requirements of the Signs By-law due to conflicts with specific design guidelines. |
12 |
$781,574 |
|
REJECT |
Recommendation 3 (Appendix C) |
Sign proposals do not comply with requirements of the Signs By-law. Approval of a street ad sign at these locations would eliminate the conflict. |
3 |
$213,018 |
Details of the 27 sign proposals noted above, and the recommended allocation by vendor, follow in the next section and in Appendices “A” through “C”.
Rationale for Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Approve the award of contract and as owner of the lands,
authorize the installation of the specific type of sign detailed for each site
outlined in Appendix “A”.
Sign proposals for each of the sites identified comply with all requirements of the City Signs By-law 2005-439. Proposals include a total of 12 signs at 10 locations and have estimated revenue potential for the City in the amount of $606,190 over a five-year period.
Although all signs meet the requirements of the Signs
By-law and are eligible for award of contract, two properties have been flagged
for future redevelopment and/or beautification.
1209 St.
Laurent Boulevard
The
City lands at 1209 St. Laurent Boulevard have been identified as a potential site
for future redevelopment due to expected pressures resulting from growth.
However, the Planning & Growth Management department advises that no
development applications are currently being considered. If approved by Council, the contract award
for this site should include a condition allowing the City early termination of
the contract, and revenues will be pro-rated based on the number of months the
sign is in place. In recognition of the costs that would be incurred to install
and remove a billboard unit, consideration should be given to allow the sign
for a period of not less than two years.
135
Preston Street
Details
of the sign proposal for 135 Preston Street were circulated to the Preston
Street Business Improvement Area (BIA).
The BIA is opposed to the proposal in view of their shared commitment to
invest in a street beautification program, which will commence in 2007. The
area businesses are investing funds to create a pedestrian-friendly street
scene for residents and customers, and the BIA feels that advertising signage
is not conducive to achieving their goal of a village atmosphere.
Recommendation 2: Consider the proposals of the sites outlined
in Appendix “B”, for signs that do not meet all requirements of the Signs
By-law and specific design guidelines.
Sign proposals for each of the proposed sites do not comply with all requirements of the City Signs By-law 2005-439 due to conflicts with certain City design guidelines, such as those for the Ottawa Business Park, scenic entry routes, and town centers. Details of design conflicts follow.
Ottawa
Business Park
The sign proposals for 2190 Walkley Road, 2299 St. Laurent Boulevard, and 2247 St. Laurent Boulevard comply with the specific sign district and setback requirements of the City Signs By-law 2005-439 however, they do not meet the Landscaping and Building Design Guidelines of the Ottawa Business Park that suggest a maximum sign height of 10 feet. The proposed billboard signs are the industry standard height of 20 feet. The design guidelines have not been registered on title, however land owners acknowledged notice of the guidelines as they were attached to the purchase/sale agreements for the properties within the park.
Details of the billboard proposals were circulated to the President and Vice-President of the Ottawa and Hawthorne Business Park Association. The response received was favourable and supportive of this initiative as a means to raise new sources of revenue.
There are
proposals for three signs within the Ottawa Business Park with an estimated
revenue potential of approximately
$229,000 over a five-year period.
Scenic
Entry Routes
Section 4.6.4 of the Official Plan outlines
proposed design guidelines for scenic entry routes. Scenic-entry routes include a variety of roads, such as highways,
parkways, arterial roads and local streets and they link major tourist,
recreation, heritage and natural environment destinations in and beyond
Ottawa. Billboard signage is not prohibited from scenic
entry routes specifically, however section 68 of the Signs by-law requires
compliance with site specific policies of the Official Plan. Excerpts of the Official Plan policy dealing
with scenic entry routes are listed in Appendix “E”.
There are proposals for six signs along the City’s scenic entry routes with an estimated revenue potential of approximately $418,000. over a five-year period.
The remaining three sign proposals are either considered to be in conflict with the Orleans Town Centre Design Guidelines or involve a site that is designated mixed use due to its considerable pedestrian traffic.
In addition to the design considerations, there are special land redevelopments and policy initiatives to be contemplated.
241
Centrum Boulevard
In
addition to potential conflicts with the Orleans Town Centre Design Guidelines,
the proposed sign at 241 Centrum Boulevard is encompassed within an area
flagged for redevelopment. The Orleans
Arts Centre and Town Centre Project will involve the development of an 87,000
sq ft arts centre facility and possible future addition of a hotel, office
development, and high-density residential development.
On April 5 2006, the Transportation Committee and Planning and Environment Committee requested Council approval to direct the Planning and Growth Management department to work with the Public Works and Services department to develop a policy with respect to the following:
· Standards for street design, including the burial of hydro within City rights-of-way, to achieve urban design objectives of the Official Plan, the Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy and other area-specific plans
· A City-wide right-of-way lighting policy
Council consideration is requested for each of the proposed signs listed in Appendix “B” as the signs do not comply with the full requirements of the Signs By-law and the future policy considerations noted above were not included as a condition and mandatory requirement of the request for proposal. The 12 proposed signs have an estimated revenue potential of approximately $780,000 over a five-year period.
Recommendation 3: Reject the proposals for the sites outlined in Appendix “C”, for signs that do not meet all of the requirements of the Signs By-law.
The three sign proposals identified in Appendix “C” do not comply with the requirements of the Signs By-law for billboards due to setback requirements and therefore would require the approval of a minor variance in order to proceed. As the RFP clearly stated that any proposals requiring minor variances would not be considered and proponents submitted their proposals accordingly, these sites should not be considered. Council consideration of a smaller street ad sign at these locations would eliminate the requirement to approve a minor variance, however the revenue potential would be significantly less than the proposed $213,000 for billboard signs.
424
Metcalfe Street
The
proposed sign at 424 Metcalfe Street is encompassed within the area flagged for
redevelopment. The Beaver Barracks site
has been allocated for the development of affordable housing. A design plan is expected in 2006, and site
development could begin as early as the summer of 2007. If approved by Council, the contract award
for this site would include a condition allowing the City early termination of
the contract, and revenues will be pro-rated based on the number of months the
sign is in place.
Recommendation 4: Approve
the Request for Proposal (RFP) process as the selected method to expand the
billboard program and the future award of contracts for billboards and street
ad signs that comply with City signs and zoning by-laws.
The Signs By-law requires any individual involved in the construction, installation, relocation or alteration of a sign located on private property to obtain a permit. Any application accompanied by a permit fee will launch the current application review process. Provided the by-law requirements are met and no variance is requested, a permit application can obtain approval without Council notification and/or approval. This approach may meet the needs of individual private property owners but is not in the best interest of the City when considering signage on City property.
In order to safeguard the City’s assets and preserve the community interests, it is recommended that opportunities for future signage on City property only be considered by following a formal competitive selection and award process. This approach would prohibit one-off requests and discourage unsolicited proposals. City Council direction will be required to initiate any new opportunity investigations and the approval of additional signage.
CONSULTATION
Following the completion of the sign permit investigation process, staff met individually with each of the affected Ward Councillors in order to provide an overview of the RFP process, review proposal details for billboards in their wards, and to determine the type of consultation required to engage the community and obtain the desired feedback.
The public was also notified of this initiative through a series of notices published in the Ottawa Citizen, Le Droit and other community newspapers (e.g. The News EMC, The Weekly Journal, Nepean This Week, L’Express, etc.). Additionally, at the request of individual Ward Councillors, staff circulated site-specific information to key stakeholder groups within the community. The public was invited to provide feedback to the City by May 19th by calling 3-1-1 or their City Councillor, e-mailing Citybillboards@ottawa.ca or completing a feedback form when visiting the City’s web site at ottawa.ca.
The City received minimal feedback from the public. Very few, if any calls were received by the City’s Call Centre and, just over a dozen email collected from Citybillboards@ottawa.ca (three inquiries, eleven objections, one supporter, one indifferent). Some feedback may have been provided directly to the offices of elected officials and is therefore not included in this report.
Overall, the main concerns expressed by Members of Council relate to safety (potential for driver distraction) and aesthetics (impact on urban landscape). Where provided, Councillor feedback on site-specific proposals is included within Appendices A-D.
Key stakeholders of each of the City departments were consulted throughout the development of this initiative and their feedback has been incorporated into this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
This initiative has the potential to raise an estimated $1.6 million over the period of five years, while respecting the intent of City Signs and Zoning By-laws and preserving the integrity of community space.
Although minimal, the costs associated with unplanned activities, such as community consultation and newspaper advertising will offset anticipated revenue targets.
Billboard revenues will also be used to offset the unpaid application fees for each sign permit rejected. For each billboard unit proposed, the proponent submitted a sign permit application and a non-refundable deposit in the amount of $750.00 ($500.00 for street ad signs) to partially offset sign permit application fees. Permit applications that obtain approval of Council and result in the award of contracts will be subject to the remainder of the full sign permit application fee, by the applicant vendor. Vendors are not responsible to pay the remaining balance of fees for the applications that are rejected therefore this shortfall will be recovered from future billboard revenues.
The Real Property Asset Management branch of the Corporate Services department will be responsible for managing the Council approved contracts. It is anticipated that .5 FTE will be required to manage the contracts, monitor compliance of the sign and advertising content, investigate violations and manage related complaints. Salaries and benefits associated with this FTE are estimated to be approximately $40,000 per annum.
Estimated revenues of $1.5 million from this initiative were previously identified and approved in the Opportunity Log and 2005 Service Delivery Improvements Target report. These revenues are required to achieve the Council approved efficiency targets that have been built into the budget. Any shortfall resulting from the rejection of these proposals will result in a deficit and will have to be addressed as a pressure in the 2007 budget.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Appendix A – Proposals comply with requirements of signs by-law
Appendix B – Proposals do not comply with all requirements of the signs by-law conflicts with design guidelines exist
Appendix C – Billboard proposals do not meet the requirements of the signs by-law possible opportunity to resolve the relevant compliance issues
Appendix D – Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law
Appendix E – Scenic-Entry Routes – Excerpts from Section 4.6.4 of the Official Plan
DISPOSITION
The proposed period of contract will be for five years from the date of award, with one optional five year extension, subject to satisfactory performance, approved sign permit renewals, and financial terms deemed acceptable to the City.
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Billboard sign is proposed to be located on the north side of Centrum Blvd., east of the future Commercial Drive. A billboard sign in this location does not fit with the pedestrian scale streetscape elements that have been designed and constructed along the street in accordance with the Town Centre Design Guidelines. Site is part of P3 initiative for Orleans Arts Centre. |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
Excerpts from the by-law
GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA
68. (1) The owner of a permanent sign shall ensure that the size, scale, design and appearance of a sign that is on or attached to a building complies with the general intent and purpose of the urban design policies and guidelines of the secondary plans, site specific policies of the official plan and Council policy objectives for specific roadways identified in the by-law as they relate to,
(a) the size, scale, design and appearance of the building;
(b) the architectural features of the building; and
(c) the character of the neighbourhood in which it is located.
(2)
Subsection (1) applies, with all necessary modification, to a billboard sign.
Summary of Billboard Regulations
General Billboard
Restrictions:
§ Billboards are not permitted on properties zoned residential, community or neighbourhood commercial, agriculturally zoned lands, protected lands, etc;
§ Billboards are approved for a 5-year term only. Permit holders must reapply to extend beyond the approved term and requalify in terms of the restrictions set out in the by-law;
§ Billboards are limited to specific types of land use and zoning in Districts 4 or 5 only, e.g. highway commercial, mixed use commercial, rural industrial, subject to the requirements set out below;
§ Maximum billboard scale and height is 18.5 sq. m and 8 m respectively;
§ Billboards restricted to externally or internally illuminated;
§ Billboards are not permitted within 15 m of another ground sign;
§ Billboards must have a minimum setback of 1 m from every driveway, lane or aisle;
§ Billboards are not permitted within 30 m of a heritage building;
§ Billboards are not permitted within 500 m of a designated roadway (e.g. NCC parkways);
§ Billboards are not permitted on undeveloped land that is within 300 m of a residential use (from property line);
§ Billboards are not permitted within 500 m of a village (as designated by the Official Plan);
§ Billboards may not be animated (moving messages or flashing illumination).
District 4 restrictions -
Commercial/Industrial
In an urban setting, billboards are limited to properties zoned community commercial, general commercial for mixed use areas, mixed use centres, industrial, shopping centres and business parks subject to the following restrictions:
§ Billboards must have a minimum set back of 150 m from the nearest billboard sign;
§ Despite the above, a minimum separation of 1,000 m is required where the billboard sign is visible from any other billboard sign located on a premises zoned AGR, GR, Ar1, Ar2, Ag, A2, RU, RR, RA, GE, GAR in the zoning by-laws of the City.
§ Billboards must have a minimum setback of 2 m from a lot line abutting a street;
§ Billboards must have a minimum setback of 1.5 m from a side lot line or a rear lot line;
§ Billboards must have a minimum setback of 30 m from a residential use in a residential zone;
§ Billboards must have a minimum setback of 30 m from a lot having on it an institutional use in an institutional zone; and
§ Where a billboard sign is within 30 m of a building on an abutting lot and the building fronts onto the same street as the billboard sign, and is set back a greater distance than 2 m from the lot line abutting a street, the billboard sign must be set back the same distance as the building from the lot line abutting the street.
District 5 restrictions -
Rural Commercial
In rural areas, billboards are limited to properties zoned for rural commercial, rural industrial and mineral extraction, subject to the following restrictions:
§ Billboards are not permitted within 2,500 m from any other billboard sign in any direction, measured from the nearest part of any visible billboard sign, however where a sign would not be visible from another billboard sign, the billboard may be located closer but no less than 1,000 m;
§ Billboards must have a minimum setback from any lot line abutting a street of 12 m;
§ Billboards must have a minimum setback from any other lot line of 1.5 m;
§ Billboards must have a minimum separation distance between any building or structure and the billboard sign is equal to the height of the billboard sign;
§ Billboards must have a minimum setback of 300 m from a residential use; and
§ Where a billboard sign is within 30 m of a building on an abutting lot and the building fronts onto the same street as the billboard sign and is set back a greater distance than 12 m from the lot line abutting a street, the billboard sign must be set back the same distance as the building from the lot line abutting the street.
This information is provided for general reference purposes only and it not intended to replace the content of the Signs By-law 2005-439. For a complete list of regulations governing the installation and maintenance of all permanent signs on private property, refer to the By-law 2005-439 approved and enacted by City Council.
Policies
1. Scenic-Entry Routes are designated on Schedules I and J.
2. Guidelines for Scenic-Entry Routes that elaborate on the more general Arterial Road Corridor Design Guidelines, as updated from time to time, will be developed and implemented by the City. While respecting the primary function of the road, the guidelines will promote:
a. The creation of a safe and attractive environment for travellers including, where appropriate, such amenities as lay-bys, scenic lookouts, information, and directional signs to important urban and rural cultural, heritage, environmental and tourism destinations;
b. Attention to such matters as building orientation, outside storage, access and egress, landscaping, fencing, lighting and signage to create an aesthetically pleasing streetscape;
c. The protection of views to natural and cultural heritage features, mature trees, and roadside vegetation along and beyond the right-of-way;
d. Coordination of landscaping, berming, pathways and other features within the rights-of-way with the creation of such features on adjacent land, including the potential to locate these features on adjacent property;
e. Any other items determined by the City.
3. Until such time as the guidelines for Scenic-Entry Routes are prepared, development applications adjacent to these routes will be assessed against the criteria listed above, in addition to other requirements of this Plan.
