ITEM 00-04017 on tonight’s first reading was modifications to the sign ordinance. The Sign Ordinance Committee, using the Ogden Avenue master plan as one of many resources to help craft a new sign ordinance, gave council an amended sign ordinance that council approved in May 2005. The goal was reducing the visual clutter and make sure signs are orderly, sized properly, not obstructions to traffic entering and leaving the streets, not distracting or objectionable in content. They found the number of signs created too much visual chaos, and that they needed to be reduced and consolidated. They also found many sign sizes out of scale with the property. That’s where we came from. Although this new sign ordinance was village-wide, the problem it addressed was Ogden Avenue. It requires full compliance by the end of 2012.
The EDC submitted the text amendment to create new category in between the largest signs allowed (for multi-store properties) and the rest of the smaller single store properties by carving out a middle classification. The text amendment proposed by the EDC would allow free-standing signs that are 15 feet tall and 60 square feet on lots with a minimum frontage of 260 feet with a minimum of two-and-one-half acres even if they are single tenant properties.
Staff is against the text amendment (mainly because staff has no direction to change the sign ordinance) but acknowledged there is a gap that exists primarily for large single tenant properties. These buildings have larger setbacks from the road and the description fits a lot of properties along Ogden Avenue. Think car dealers. Staff and the EDC also found that most of the big car dealers down by Finley along Ogden are in M-1 zoned land, and the current ordinance amendment would cover B-3 only.
Dick Benes (?) spoke, he was on the Sign Ordinance Committee. He reiterated the purpose of the work his group had done. He gave some context that the shopping center signs were given a larger size to adequately allow for advertising the multiple stores, not because of the width of the property.
Since the new sign policy, most cases that have come before the Zoning Board of Appeal have dealt with requests for sign variances.
One point he made was that any exceptions to enlarging the size allowed is that it’s kind of a camel’s nose under the tent, first 15 feet, next the businesses will want higher. The Firestone sign was cited as an example of a sign that was far larger than needed. The Dodge sign that change east of Belmont was also cited as a positive, and he noted when that occurred it opened up the whole area.
Greg Bedalov, President of the EDC spoke and he thanked staff for working with them on the text amendment request. There’s 14-15 businesses (plus five or more are zoned M-1 that probably should be B-3) that would benefit from the proposed change. Those M-1 property owners have no problem with zoning to B-3 from M-1; it’s no skin off their nose because their business is already allowed in that land space. He wants businesses to be able to site signs generally where they feel the sign will do the most good.
Plan Commission PC-19-09 A petition seeking an Amendment to Chapter 28 of the Municipal Code – Zoning Ordinance Section 28.1502.01 Monument Signs and Shingle Signs to amend the original monument sign regulations as they relate to shopping centers and automobile dealerships; Downers Grove Economic Development Corporation, Petitioner, was sent to council with a 6-1 vote that supported approving the text amendment request.
Commissioner Marilyn Schnell noted that the sign variance requests getting through the Zoning Board of Appeal take time and are hard to obtain. ZBA has a rightly high standard they want to see met. They usually deny such requests, around a half dozen or so since the sign ordinance took effect. She supported an idea put forward by a different unnamed committee member who called several council members and suggested they think of two 10’ signs allowed versus one 15’ high sign. Director of Community development though two signs might add to the confusion and chaos more so than one 15’ tall sign.
Commissioner Geoff Neustadt noted the suggested setbacks from lot borders might put two signs right by each other, so he thought he could support the text amendment as requested by the EDC.
Commissioner William Waldack noted the ordinance was only five years old but there was a need to evaluate the ordinance and get some additional input. He noted most non-complying signs still were not changed out. Given the time spent on signs, and zoning conflicts, and the lack of current enforcement, the ordinance should be revisited in whole rather than apply an amendment patch.
Commissioner Bruce Beckman wanted to stay zeroed in on the request at hand. The existing sign gap existed, and the amendment address the option of large properties having a single sign the same size as similarly sized properties and building heights.
Commissioner Bob Barnett wanted a copy of the power point presentation. They couldn’t find the slide he was looking for but he asked if the Ogden Plan concentrated on reducing clutter; the number, size, and height of signs. It did, but talked about general guidelines without specifics, but did call for siting and size similarity, so one sign didn’t obscure another.
Mayor Ron Sandack acknowledged the seeming conflicting goals of beautification of Ogden being so difficult, and finding that one size ordinance does not fit all areas of the village. He agreed that the sign ordinance should be revisited, but maybe after the compliance dead line, which is in two years. He noted that the 15’ signs for multi-tenant properties already exist. He would favor de-cluttering with fewer signs, but switching right now might send a negative message to those businesses that spent the money and changed out signs, and wanted to make sure he had additional information on how the ZBA adjudicated variance requests, and would have to roll it around some more.
Commissioner Sean Durkin supported the amendment. He asked if any companies that were going to come into Downers Grove changed their minds due to the sign ordinance.
It’s tough times right now. Travel down Ogden from Naperville east. Naperville has huge signs at big single tenant properties, mainly car dealers, that block out the sun but you sure do see them; Lisle has big signs too, mainly for car dealers; Westmont and Clarendon Hills have bigger signs: Durkins’ query has merit.
The Sign Ordinance Committee was not designated as an Ad Hoc Committee, so they could be called back into duty if needed. The Committee members did some heavy lifting when they did their homework. At the time the original Sign Ordinance changes took effect it was specifically noted that the Village had the flexibility to make changes to the changes if needed.
COC, DMG, and EDC have worked pretty well to smooth over the economic trough we are suffering in. It isn’t apparent now but it will be when the economy kicks back. Giving them tools they request makes sense within limits, and adding a bridging category to the sign ordinance seems like one of those very tools; limited, within the existing parameters, and beneficial to making large sales tax generating businesses happy to locate here. In the mix, DG should look at the requested rezoning and get that straightened out. That area near Belmont is the largest chunk of deep lots along Ogden Avenue, and if car dealers go away, having a large B-3 area one step easier for re-development makes sense.
-Mark Thoman
Now if we can just deal with the overgrown vacant lots, construction debris in ditches, litter filled stagnant detention “ponds”, open dumpsters, massage parlors, excessive power lines, etc. we will have it made.
What about Omega’s sign? It’s like a landmark.
First thing i thought of too Don….don’t mess with the Omega sign!
IMO, there are some ugly properties on Odgen where the most attractive thing about them might be the big signs.
Viva la Firestone sign – or my family will never find the right street to turn off Ogden, you can see it rising in the distance from afar at night. There are 4 Washington Streets from 294 to Main. KingsHS would probably appreciate it too.
I just read, in the Sun, what I think is an absurd statement by a Dick Benes: “Not in any case do you want a sign higher than 10 feet in Downers Grove”.
10 feet? How does he figure that’s a magically perfect height in all situations? I can just see people looking for some business on Ogden Avenue, where during a busy period you’d better be pretty darned sure where you want to turn a block ahead of time…not seeing a place until the last minute, then making indecisive or last-second maneuvers when they realize they’re about to pass their destination. Then there’s a higher likelihood of traffic accidents and flashes of road rage from those behind them. I just think that arbitrary, one-size-fits-all height regulation isn’t really thought out. “Cluttered” or not, more visible/higher signs can prevent some traffic problems. And the mayor had a good point in noting that aesthetics are subjective. Is there a “Downers Grove Aesthetics Czar” position that’s held by Benes, that I didn’t know about?
Omega’s sign was re-faced in 1995 when they remodeled both sign and restaurant.
Height is a bit over 33′ (10′ is max to current code).
Area is 148 square feet, way over current code (36 s.f. max).
It has 5 changeable copy lines (2 are max).
So no, doesn’t meet current code.
Signs located in the DB Downtown Business District; DT Downtown Transition District; or Fairview Concentrated Business District and erected prior to 1965 shall be deemed heritage signs and shall be allowed to continue and be maintained and parts replaced in any manner to allow for continued use. In order to be deemed a protected sign, the owner of such sign shall provide conclusive evidence to the Code Enforcement Department of the existence of such sign prior to 1965.
That doesn’t seem to cover Ogden Avenue, but it says “and erected prior to 1965″ so maybe it could be grandfathered. Depends on how they interpret the language?
The Sign Ordinance Committee looked at traffic safety studies among other information-a lot of other information- when they came up with 10 and 15 foot heights. They considered all the points you brought up and a bunch more.
Thanks Mark.
Just seems goofy that Omega might wind up getting hassled over what is really a decent-looking sign and pretty normal for a Pancake House, when on the same road you have an old motel – the building being easily 50 times the eyesore any of the signs are. (A row of dumpstrs would be more attractive.) I know it’s a different issue, buildings vs signs – but if you rank village “aesthetics violations” it’s not even close.
That ugly old motel has a an ugly half-lit sign and a wonderful “For Sale” sign just waiting for the economy to bounce back. Then there is the lovely sign that is really a truck that the tattoo place, near there (not to be confused with the tattoo parlor further west on Ogden) parks in front of thier building. It’s taller than the building I believe – is that a legal sign? I should have asked the DGPD officer that was in the parking lot saturday afternoon, but he was too busy leading a couple of people into the backseat of his patrol car.
King’s Health needs a new sign, something more reflective of the regal appointments that I’m certain lay just inside the screen door.
LOL Meat!
KellyDGM – I think the sign would actually look kind of cool – cleaned up and functioning, it looks like it belongs on a vintage strip of Route 66…but the building – I’m not sure rodents would even stay there. But maybe I’m being too judgmental and it’s really really nice inside.
I’m waiting to read a column on “Living in a Building Mr Duellman Built”..
UPDATE-
Council passed the revisions . Waldack’s wants to reconvene the Sign Ordinance Committee to revisit and update the codes. Council seemed aware that there might be some businesses who have changed their signs that might be upset, but who they are,who knows. No one from the audience spoke to that point during public comments.