Agenda 08-27-14 - Village of Downers Grove

Transcription

VILLAGE OF DOWNERS GROVE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
801 BURLINGTON AVENUE
August 27, 2014
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes – July 23, 2014
4. Public Hearings
a. ZBA-07-14 (Continued from July 23, 2014): A petition seeking a sign
variation to maintain the existing wall and monument signs. The property
is currently zoned B-3, General Services and Highway Business. The
property is located at the southwest corner of Opus Place and Finley
Road. This property is commonly known as 3300 Finley Road, Downers
Grove, IL (PIN 06-31-107-017); Fry’s Electronics Inc., Petitioner; Urbs in
Horto, LP., Owner.
b. ZBA-15-14: A petition seeking setback variations to reduce the required
monument sign setbacks along Fairview and Prairie Avenues. The
property is currently zoned R-4, Single Family Residence. The property is
located at the southwest corner of Fairview and Prairie Avenues. This
property is commonly known as 444 Wilson Street, Downers Grove, IL
(PIN 09-08-222-018); St. Mary of Gostyn Parish, Petitioner and Owner.
c. ZBA-16-14: A petition seeking a setback variation to reduce the required
monument sign side yard setback. The property is currently zoned M-1,
Light Manufacturing. The property is located immediately south of the Tintersection of Wallbank and Warren Avenues. This property is commonly
known as 1541-1561 Warren Avenue, Downers Grove, IL (PINs 09-07221-001, -002, -003, -004, -005 and -006); The Warren Crossing
Condominium Association, Petitioner; Eileen R. Fitzgerald, R & K
Insurance Agency, Inc., VRW Investments, LLC., Warren Property
Management and Development LLC., and West Suburban Bank Trust
#12252, Owners.
5. Other Business
6. Adjournment
THIS TENTATIVE REGULAR AGENDA MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
DOWNERS GROVE STAFF REPORTS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE
RESEARCH DESK IN THE LIBRARY OR ON-LINE AT www.downers.us
AFTER 5:00 P.M. ON THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE MEETING DATE
REPORT FOR THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 27, 2014 AGENDA
SUBJECT:
T YPE:
SUBMITTED BY:
ZBA 07-14
3300 Finley Road
Sign variation
Patrick Ainsworth
Planner
REQUEST
The petitioner is seeking a sign variation to maintain 1,401 square feet of wall and monument signs where 300
square feet is allowed per Section 28.1502 of the Zoning Ordinance.
NOTICE
The application has been filed in conformance with applicable procedural and public notice requirements.
GENERAL INFORMATION
OWNER:
Urbs in Horto, LP c/o Mr. Richard Singer
4400 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95112
APPLICANT:
Mr. Graham Grady
Taft, Stettinius, & Hollister LLP
111 East Wacker Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60601
PROPERTY INFORMATION
EXISTING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
PROPERTY SIZE:
PIN:
B-3, General Services and Highway Business
Commercial
16.18 acres
06-31-101-017
SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES
ZONING
NORTH:
B-3 General Services
and Highway Business
Tollway Right-of-Way
SOUTH:
EAST:
WEST:
ORM, Office Research &
Manufacturing
ORM, Office Research &
Manufacturing
FUTURE LAND USE
Office/Corporate Campus
Tollway Right-of-Way, Single Family
Residential (beyond)
ZBA-07-14, 3300 Finley Road
August 27, 2014
Page 2
ANALYSIS
SUBMITTALS
This report is based on the following documents, which are on file with the Department of Community
Development:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Application/Petition for Public Hearing
Project Summary
Plat of Survey
Sign Variation Drawings
Sign Photos
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The petitioner is requesting a sign variation to maintain 1,401 square feet of wall and monument signs for
Fry’s Electronics at 3300 Finley Road. The subject property is situated at the southwest corner of Finley
Road and Opus Place. The property is currently zoned B-3, General Services and Highway Business.
The property is improved with a 152,850 square foot one-story 28 foot tall commercial building. The
building faces Finley Road to the east, I-88 and I-355 to the south and west and an adjacent parcel to the
north.
The property is permitted a total of 300 square feet of wall and monument signs and an additional 225
square foot tollway monument sign per Section 28.1502 of the Sign Ordinance. This property currently
has 1,887 square feet of total signage distributed through five wall signs, one each on the north, south and
west facades and two on the east façade, and one monument sign. Fry’s shares a second 57 square foot
monument sign with the X-Sport Fitness immediately to the north. The shared monument sign was
approved as part of the X-Sport Planned Development and is not part of the Fry’s petition.
The petitioner is proposing to remove the east “Fry’s” wall sign to reduce the total sign area to 1,401
square feet, in an attempt to bring their sign package closer to conformity with the Sign Ordinance. Each
specific sign and their corresponding size is summarized in the table below and is shown in Figure 1:
Sign Location
North Façade
South Façade
East Façade
East Façade
West Façade
Monument Adjacent to
Finley Rd
TOTAL SIGNAGE
Type
Wall Sign
Wall Sign
Wall Sign
Wall Sign (“Mobile
Electronics Installation”)
Wall Sign
Existing Sign Size
352
486
486
Proposed Sign Size
352
486
0
27
486
27
486
Monument Sign
-
50
1,887
50
1,401
Per Section 28.1502 of the Sign Ordinance, Fry’s Electronics is permitted a total of 300 square feet of
wall and monument signage. This property is also afforded the opportunity of an additional tollway
monument sign that can be 225 square feet in size and 20 feet in height as cited in Section
28.1502.01(A)(7) of the Sign Ordinance. The additional tollway monument sign is not included in the
300 square feet of maximum allowable signage. As such, qualifying properties along the tollway can have
525 square feet of signage per code.
August 27, 2014
Page 3
This property is considered a multi-frontage property with the ability to install a wall sign on all four
façades so long as the total size of all wall and non-tollway monument signs does not exceed 300 square
feet. The Village measures the surface area of a sign by “drawing an imaginary square or rectangular
envelope so as to completely enclose the copy on the sign face excluding the support and architectural
features” as defined in Section 28.201 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Currently there are two monument signs that contain the petitioner’s content. The first monument sign is
located east of the Fry’s building along Finley Road and is 12 feet in height and 50 square feet in size
where a 60 square foot and 15’ tall sign is allowed. The second monument sign, located at the intersection
of Finley Road and Opus Place, contains signage for the petitioner and measures 57 square feet.
However, this particular monument sign is shared with XSport Fitness and is not counted towards the
applicant’s total signage. This specific monument sign is part of Planned Development #40 which was
approved via Ordinance 4790. No other portion of the Fry’s Electronics building, property or signage is
part of this Planned Development approval.
ANALYSIS
Variation from Zoning Ordinance, Sign Variation
As noted above, the petitioner is requesting a sign variation to maintain 1,401 square feet of existing wall
and monument signs where 300 square feet is allowed per Section 28.1502 of the Sign Ordinance. Staff
finds there are no unique circumstances or hardships associated with this property that would warrant the
requested variation to be granted for the following reasons:
1) There are no physical hardships or unique circumstances associated with the property which
prevents the installation of code compliant signs.
2) This particular property is afforded an additional sign not provided to similar commercial
properties. The petitioner has the ability to install a 225 square foot tollway monument sign and
can be 20 feet in height. This tollway sign does not count towards their 300 square feet of
maximum allowable signage; therefore, the petitioner is afforded a total of 525 square feet of
signage.
3) The 57 square foot monument sign that contains the content of “Fry’s Electronics & XSport
Fitness” located at the intersection of Finley Road and Opus Place is part of Planned
Development #40 and does not count towards the total amount of signage for the petitioner.
4) If the variation were granted where no physical hardships or unique circumstances exists, then the
variation would be applicable to other similar properties.
Based on the analysis below, staff finds there are no physical hardships or unique circumstances
associated with this property and recommends denial of this request.
STANDARDS FOR GRANTING VARIATIONS
The petitioner has outlined the request in the attached narrative letter and sign photos. The petitioner will
further address the proposal and justification to support the requested variation to the Board at the public
hearing.
Sign variations require evaluation per Section 28.1803 of the Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Granting
a Variation: “A variation shall be permitted only if the Board finds that it is in harmony with the general
provisions and interests of this Zoning Ordinance and that there are practical difficulties or particular
hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance. In its
consideration of the standards of practical difficulties or particular hardship, the Board shall require that
the following standards are met:”
August 27, 2014
Page 4
(1) The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the
conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located.
The property will continue to yield a reasonable return with the installation of code compliant signage.
The petitioner has the ability to install conforming wall signs on all four façades. Moreover, the subject
property’s location also permits the installation of a 225 square foot, 20 foot tall tollway monument sign
which does not count towards the 300 square feet of maximum allowable signage. The petitioner has the
ability to install code compliant signage that allows the opportunity to identify the store’s location to
passing drivers. This standard has not been met.
(2) The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.
There are no unique circumstances associated with this property that results in the inability of the
petitioner to conform to the maximum allowable signage. The property has the opportunity to install
signage along major public right-of-ways which is similar to other commercial properties in the Village.
The property is setback a similar distance from the adjacent right-of-ways as compared to other
businesses who have conforming signs. Additionally, the petitioner has the ability to construct a tollway
monument sign that does not count towards the maximum 300 square feet of signage. This standard has
not been met.
(3) The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
If the variation is granted, it would alter the essential character of the locality by setting a precedent.
Every commercial property within the Village has to abide by the Sign Ordinance. If the existing signage
is allowed to remain, then the granting of the variation where no physical hardship or unique
circumstances exists could lead to the approval of other variations for increased sign area which is not the
desire of the community. This standard has not been met.
(4) That the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific
property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out.
There are no physical hardships that prohibit the installation of signs that conform to the Sign Ordinance
and still adequately alert travelers to the location of the subject property. The petitioner has the ability to
install wall signs on all four facades. Additionally, this particular property has an opportunity to install a
tollway monument sign adjacent to the tollway to alert travelers of the store’s location. The tollway
monument sign is in addition to the 300 square foot maximum allowance of signage. The specific location
of the subject property contains opportunities to install conforming wall signs on all four facades which
has direct viewing access to Finley Road, the tollway and the main customer entrance. This standard has
not been met.
(5) That the conditions upon which the requested variation is based would not be applicable, generally,
to other property within the same zoning classification.
If the variation were granted where no physical hardships or unique circumstances exist, then the
variation would be applicable to other properties in the B-3, General Services and Highway Business
zoning district. This property is similar to other commercial properties throughout the B-3 zoning district
in the Village. There are no unique circumstances which would limit the applicability of the variation
request to only the subject petition. This standard has not been met.
(6) That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not resulted from the actions of the owner.
There is no established hardship or difficulty for the petitioner to install signage that complies with the
Sign Ordinance. The property is similar to other commercial properties in the Village that are required to
bring their signs into compliance. There are no physical hardships or unique circumstances which would
preclude the installation of code compliant signs. This standard has not been met.
August 27, 2014
Page 5
(7) That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property,
or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger of fires, or
endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
The granting of a variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties.
However, the variation may diminish the property values of adjacent properties that have to comply with
the Sign Ordinance. The granting of this variation could impact adjacent properties that are required to
comply with the Sign Ordinance. This standard has not been met.
(8) That the proposed variation will not alter the land use characteristics of the district.
The Finley Road corridor will remain commercial. However, the granting of a variation where no
physical hardships or unique circumstances exists could lead to the approval of other sign variations for
increased sign size along Finley Road and other commercial corridors. This would lead to increased
signage that would impact the Village and would be counter to the goals of the Sign Ordinance. The
characteristics of the B-3, General Service and Highway Business zoning district could change. This
standard has not been met.
(9) That the granting of the variation requested will not confer on the owner any special privilege that
is denied by this Zoning Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same district.
If the variation were granted, it would confer a special privilege to the owner. There are no physical
hardships or unique circumstances that limits the petitioner’s ability to install signs that comply with the
Sign Ordinance. The petitioner already has an opportunity to install a tollway monument sign which will
not count towards their 300 square foot maximum allowance of signage. If this variation is granted, then
the petitioner would be given a special privilege for their signs as compared to other similar businesses
throughout the Village. This standard has not been met.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff finds there are no physical hardships or unique circumstances associated with this property which
inhibits the ability to install code compliant wall signs. Based on the analysis above, staff believes that all
nine standards for granting the variation have not been met and recommends denial of the requested wall
sign size variation.
Should the ZBA find that all nine standards have been met and decide to approve the requested variation,
the variance should be subject to the following condition:
1. The wall and monument signs shall comply with the drawings attached to this staff report.
Staff Report Approved By:
___________________________
Stanley J. Popovich, AICP
Planning Manager
SP:pa
-att
P:\P&CD\PROJECTS\ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS\2014 ZBA Petitions\ZBA-07-14 - 3300 Finley - Sign Variation\Staff Report ZBA-0714-8_27_2014.doc
August 27, 2014
Figure 1 - Diagram showing location and size of the applicant’s existing signage.
Page 6
August 27, 2014
Figure 2 - Wall sign on the north elevation facing the main customer entrance.
Figure 3 - Wall sign on the west elevation facing the Tollway right-of-way.
Page 7
August 27, 2014
Figure 4 - Wall sign on the south elevation facing the Tollway right-of-way.
Figure 5 - Wall sign on the east elevation facing Finley Road. The petitioner is proposing
to remove this sign.
Page 8
!
PL
!
1400
U
S
LACEY RD
_
^
I-88
I-355
FINLEY RD
OP
OP
U
S
PL
!
1500
!
3200
!
1431
!
1501
!
!
3301
3301
!
3333
FINLEY RD
!
3300
I-8 8
I-355
3450
!
0 60 120
240
Feet
3300 Finley Road - Location Map
O K R E N T A S S O C I A T E S, I N C.
SUBJECT:
Fry’s Electronics, Inc.
3300 Finley Road
Downers Grove, IL
Evaluation of proposed zoning variation to permit continuation of exiting signs
PREPARED BY:
Lawrence Okrent
DATE:
August 2014
Subject site in context, July 14, 2014, view to south
I.
ORIGINS OF THE CURRENT APPLICATION
The applicant in the present matter, Fry’s Electronics, Inc., is seeking a zoning
variation to allow the exterior signs on its Downers Grove retail outlet to remain
in place. A year after Fry’s opened the facility in 2004, the Village of Downers
Grove adopted a new sign ordinance that, if strictly enforced, would obligate
Fry’s to substantially reduce the area of its existing signs. Under the terms of the
new sign ordinance, signs in place before its passage became legally nonconforming for a seven-year grace period. That period was subsequently
FRY’S
PAGE 2
August 2014
extended, but ended in April 2014. The Village has notified Fry’s that the total
area of signs affixed to its building must now conform to the new ordinance
which sets a limit of 300 square feet for the entire building. At present, there are
five signs on the building, with a total coverage of 1887 square feet. Four of the
signs display Fry’s name, “Fry’s Electronics.” The fifth simply reads “Mobile
Electronic Installation,” and is much less visible than the others.
The Fry’s site was previously improved with an auto dealership, “Auto Nation.”
The closure of Auto Nation in 2001 led the Village of Downers Grove to promote
the redevelopment of the 23 acre site, and ultimately led to a development
agreement between Downers Grove and Fry’s, which resulted in Fry’s
establishing its first and only Illinois retail outlet, in 2004, on the southernmost
16.9 acres of the Auto Nation site.
FRY’S
Fry’s operates 34 retail outlets in nine states. The Downers Grove Fry’s is the
company’s only retail outlet in Illinois, and regularly draws customers from
throughout the region. The next closest Fry’s is in suburban Indianapolis
Indiana, more than 200 miles to the southeast.
Fry’s stores tend to be enormous, often stocking dozens of variations of a single
type of product. Fry’s not only sells fully assembled computers, but all the
individual components which consumers need to build their own, as well as a
vast selection of consumer electronic products of all types. The Downers Grove
store has a floor area of 151,800 square feet, nearly 3.5 acres, under roof. It also
has 829 off-street parking spaces.
II.
The Downers Grove B3 Zoning District
The Fry’s site is located in a Downers Grove B3 zoning District (General Services
and Highway Business). According to the Village Zoning Ordinance the B3
District “…is primarily intended to accommodate very large service and retail
establishments, business establishments that generate large volumes of
automobile traffic, high-impact commercial and limited manufacturing
activities.” At 16.9 acres, Fry’s is not only the largest single use site in any of the
village’s B3 Districts, but it has the most extensive highway exposure.
Significant B3 districts are clustered in two areas of the village: in the Ogden
Avenue Corridor and in the area north of the Reagan Tollway. The two areas are
quite different. The Ogden corridor B3 districts are made up of much smaller
sites than are found in the area north of the Tollway. In addition, the Ogden B3
Districts directly abut low density, small parcel residential neighborhoods north
and south of the Ogden-fronting properties. The B3 area north of the Tollway is
composed of much larger zoning lots, larger scale development, and situated
amid large office parks and a planned industrial area. Interestingly, the B3
O
K R E N T
A
S S O C I A T E S
,
I
N C
.
FRY’S
PAGE 3
August 2014
districts north of the Tollway are not visible from any residential area in
Downers Grove.
While the B3 District in the Ogden corridor is intricately woven into the historic
fabric of the village, the area north of the Tollway, where Fry’s is located, truly
stands apart in scale (much larger), in orientation (Tollway and major highway
exposure) and market reach. The area north of the Tollway draws shoppers (and
office workers) from a relatively broad area, including numerous communities
along or near Butterfield Road (IL Route 56). That the area is located within the
corporate boundaries of Downers Grove is not immediately evident to the casual
visitor or shopper. Nonetheless, the large office/retail complex is greatly (and
specifically) beneficial to the village’s economic welfare. It is clearly in the
Village’s interests to sustain the area’s economic vitality.
III.
THE SITE AND PHYSICAL CONTEXT
The Fry’s site is located on one of the most visible and accessible sites in the
Chicago region: the interchange of the Reagan (I-88) and DuPage (I-355)
Tollways. The site serves a regional market, well beyond nearby and surrounding
municipalities. Even within the business complex north of the Tollway, Fry’s is
not at all comparable in its market reach to other big box retailers, such as those
found in the strip centers on nearby Butterfield Road. While Fry’s has a single
location in metropolitan Chicago, nearby Best Buy has at least twenty-five retail
outlets in the region, HH Gregg has thirteen and Home Depot has more than
fifty.
Not only is Fry’s a regional destination, it is the largest of the big boxes in any
Downers Grove B3 District: Fry’s 151,800 SF, Best Buy ±67,484 SF, HH Gregg
±38,000 SF, Home Depot ±110,000 SF.
Comparison of frontages is similarly discordant. Fry’s has 1310 feet of property
frontage on Finley Road and 1540 feet on the tollway system, 2850 feet of
frontage in all, more than half a mile. The Butterfield Road frontages of Best Buy,
HH Gregg and Home Depot are ±200 ft., ±160 ft., and ±550 feet, respectively.
The sight distances are also discordant. Owing to the configuration of the
Butterfield Road commercial corridor, large retailers there typically have a single
orientation—to Butterfield Road—and the distances from which their signs can
be seen and read is generally based on the depth of the various setbacks. Best
Buy is set back ±400 feet from the nearest traffic lane on Butterfield Road; HH
Gregg ±450 feet; and Home Depot ±550 feet. Sight distances relating to Fry’s are
based on expressway geometries. The east facing sign at the southeast corner of
Fry’s is and needs to be readable from a distance of ±750 feet (the nearest traffic
lane on the westbound Reagan). The combination signs facing south and west at
the southwest corner of Fry’s are—and need to be—readable from distances of
up to 900 feet (northbound I-355 traffic at the interchange ramp). Lesser sight
O
K R E N T
A
S S O C I A T E S
,
I
N C
.
FRY’S
PAGE 4
August 2014
distances apply to the west-facing sign at the southwest corner of the building,
and the north-facing sign above the main entrance.
In the case of all but the north facing sign visibility—or readability—is also
influenced by speed limits. The speed limit on Butterfield Road is 45 mph
(slowed by traffic signals) while the speed limit on the Tollways is 55 mph,
notwithstanding that this limit is all but universally exceeded.
In summary, a number of very important factors set Fry’s apart:
1.
The business area north of the Tollway, while politically a part of
Downers Grove, is visually disconnected from the rest of Downers Grove, is
developed at a much coarser scale than the rest of Downers Grove, is primarily
oriented to expressways (I-55, I-355) and arterial routes (Butterfield, Finley
Road), and draws a significant proportion of its retail customers and office
workers from well beyond the village limits.
2.
Even in the north of Tollway business district, Fry’s stands out.
a.
With 16.9 acres, it is the largest single use parcel in Downers Grove.
b.
With 151,800 square feet of floor area, it is by far the largest retail outlet in
Downers Grove.
c.
Fry’s market reach incorporates the entire Chicago region, including
southeastern Wisconsin, northwest Indiana and central and northern
Illinois.
d.
Fry’s has the lengthiest expressway frontage of any retailer in Downers
Grove (more than one half mile), or even on the entire corridor of the
Reagan Tollway.
e.
With its expressway frontage, Fry’s signs need to be readable at greater
distances to traffic traveling at greater speeds.
The exceptional size of Fry’s building, as well as its exceptional visibility, makes
the size of its signs an important design consideration and a business imperative.
The overall dimensions of the building plan are 422 feet, north to south and 362
feet east to west. The surface area of the outer enclosing wall is 59,124 square
feet. In effect, a 300 square foot sign limit would reduce overall signage to only
one half of one percent of the exterior surface of the building.
It is evident that the 300 SF area limit on signs for a building the size of Fry’s
would greatly reduce its current identity, possibly resulting in Downers Grove’s
most visible building taking on a new identity as an anonymous monolith.
O
K R E N T
A
S S O C I A T E S
,
I
N C
.
FRY’S
PAGE 5
August 2014
Certainly signs should be proportionate to the uses they identify. While excess
signage tends to be a broader problem, undersignage can produce unintended
adverse results, as well.
IV.
DOWNERS GROVE SIGN ORDINANCE, PURPOSES
Although the current application for variances must be evaluated in accordance
with the criteria set forth in section Sect 28.1803 of the village zoning ordinance,
it is useful to consider whether the proposed reduction in sign coverage at Fry’s
is consistent with the stated purposes of the new sign ordinance (Section 9.010).
“This article is adopted for the following specific purposes:
1. to preserve, protect and promote public health, safety and welfare;
Response:
While there is no basis for asserting that the current sign
configuration has a deleterious effect on public health, safety and welfare, the
reduction in signage could adversely affect way-finding for Fry’s customers
unfamiliar with the location arriving for the first time via the expressway system,
a potential public safety issue
2. to preserve the value of private property by assuring the compatibility of signs
with surrounding land uses;
Response:
Though this is essentially an appraisal issue, it is difficult to argue,
given the scale of Fry’s and its expansive expressway-oriented context, that the
current signs are incompatible with surrounding land uses, while, on the other
hand, very small—or no—signs might well be.
3. to enhance the physical appearance of the village;
Response:
With its assertive expressway presence, Fry’s is not generally
perceived as being part of Downers Grove. The identity of the Village is
associated with its historic downtown, its leafy residential neighborhoods and its
traditional business districts.
4. to enhance the village's economy, business and industry by promoting the
reasonable, orderly and effective display of signs, and encouraging better
communication between an activity and the public it seeks with its message;
Response:
The assertion that the current Fry’s signs are unreasonable,
disorderly or ineffective is unsupportable. The issue at hand has only to do with
the implementation of the new sign regulations. Again, given the scale of the use
and the attributes of its context, the current sign program promotes better
communication between the use (Fry’s) and the public (customers arriving via
the regional expressway system).
O
K R E N T
A
S S O C I A T E S
,
I
N C
.
FRY’S
PAGE 6
August 2014
5. to protect the general public from damage and injury, that may be caused by
the faulty and uncontrolled construction and use of signs within the village;
Response:
The assertion that the current Fry’s signs are faulty or of
uncontrolled construction (they were legally conforming and properly permitted
when erected) is unsupportable.
6. to protect motorized and non-motorized travelers by reducing distraction that
may increase the number and severity of traffic accidents; and
Response:
Smaller signs, less legible to expressway traffic may pose a traffic
safety hazards to first time customers unfamiliar with Fry’s or the business
district north of the Tollway.
7. to encourage sound practices and lessen the objectionable effects of
competition with respect to size and placement of street signs.
Response:
Not applicable, as the matter under consideration bears no
relationship to the subject of street signs.
It may be concluded from the foregoing, that the proposed reduction in Fry’s
sign coverage does nothing at all to advance the started purposes of the Village’s
sign ordinance; and that, in fact, may in a broader sense, be deleterious.
IV.
EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL ACCORDING CRITERIA FOR VARIATIONS
Sect 28.1803 of the Downers Grove zoning ordinance states that, “A variation
shall be permitted only if the Board finds that it is in harmony with the general
provisions and interests of this Zoning Ordinance and that there are practical
difficulties or particular hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of
the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance.”
The applicable criteria were addressed both by the Village staff in a report dated
June 25, 2014 and in a petition for relief submitted by Fry’s on May 12, 2014.
The evaluations coming from two different perspectives show almost no
agreement in regard to any of the standards.
In several instances in the staff report, the term “physical hardship,” appears;
and several opinions make reference to it. In fact the term does not appear in the
criteria set. The term “particular hardship” does appear, as do the terms
“physical surroundings” and “physical shape.” This is an important distinction,
because much of the staff opinion is predicated on the notion that no physical
hardship exists, but does not consider the concept of particular hardship.
O
K R E N T
A
S S O C I A T E S
,
I
N C
.
FRY’S
PAGE 7
August 2014
APPLICABLE STANDARDS, RESPONSES
(1) The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be
used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district
in which it is located.
The staff report asserts that “The property will continue to yield a reasonable
return with the installation of code compliant signage.” Not only is no evidence
of any kind is offered in support of this opinion, but according to Fry’s, no one
from the village contacted the company seeking the kind of data that would
provide a basis for a more informed opinion. Reference to “the petitioner’s
ability to install conforming wall signs,” have no connection with this standard.
Fry’s asserts sign reduction will hurt its business. Fry’s willingness to commit
resources to the maintenance of the status quo suggests that the reduction is
perceived as a serious problem. As the sole outlet in the Chicago region, the
existing signs provide orientation to first time customers not familiar with the
area. As will be seen, the physical attributes of the context with high traffic
speed and lengthy site distances, suggest that sign compliance will result in a
serious diminution of Fry’s identity and ability to attract customers.
The staff report states that, “There are no unique circumstances associated with
this property that results in the inability of the petitioner to conform to the
maximum allowable signage.”
In fact, the site is unique in several respects as outlined in the foregoing
discussion:
a.
With 16.9 acres, it is the largest single use parcel in Downers Grove.
b.
With 151,800 square feet of floor area, it is by far the largest retail outlet in
Downers Grove
c.
Fry’s market reach incorporates the entire Chicago region. In fact, the
Downers Grove store is the only Fry’s outlet in the state of Illinois. Fry’s has no
stores in Wisconsin or Michigan and only one in Indiana (near Indianapolis).
d.
Fry’s has the lengthiest expressway frontage of any retailer in Downers
Grove (more than one half mile), or even the entire corridor of the Reagan
Tollway. Fry’s has major highway exposure on three sides.
e.
With its expressway frontage, Fry’s signs need to be readable at greater
distances to traffic traveling at greater speeds.
O
K R E N T
A
S S O C I A T E S
,
I
N C
.
FRY’S
PAGE 8
August 2014
The staff report further states, “The property has the opportunity to install
signage along major public right-of-ways which is similar to other commercial
properties in the Village.”
For the reasons stated in the foregoing, the property is not similar to any other
commercial property in the Village. This includes the Ogden Avenue strip,
which is lined by businesses of far more modest scale; and the Butterfield Road
businesses that have no expressway exposure and typically front on only
Butterfield Road.
(3) The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality
This is the simplest of all the standards. Fry’s seeks to sustain the status quo that
has existed since 2004, with regard to the signs on its building. It defies all logic
to suggest that sustaining the status quo will in any way alter the essential
character of the locality, while implying that the implementation of a completely
new sign regimen will not.
It should also be noted that as a prominent expressway property, Fry’s is not
generally known to be within Downers Grove.
(4) That the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical
conditions of the specific property involved would result in a particular
hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the
strict letter of the regulations were carried out.
The staff report says, “There are no PHYSICAL HARDSHIPS that prohibit the
installation of signs that conform to the Sign Ordinance and still adequately alert
travelers to the location of the subject property.” As noted, the several references
to physical hardships are not based on the language of the ordinance. The
terminology refers to “particular hardships” and “physical surroundings.” The
assertion that (smaller) conforming signs might “still adequately alert travelers to
the location of the subject property” is unsubstantiated.
In this case the specific physical surroundings, the most significant of which is
the vast expressway right-of-way toward which three sides of the Fry’s building
are exposed, result in Fry’s being a unique business property in Downers Grove.
Fry’s signs need to be legible at much greater distances than those of the strip
centers on Butterfield Road, to traffic traveling at higher speeds, and to a greater
proportion of customers coming from greater distances, many for the first time.
Fry’s states in its response that, “Fry's decided to redevelop the location on
Finley Road due to its proximity to the 1-88 and 1-355 corridor, as well as to
Finley Road and Butterfield Road, which are both busy, commercial
thoroughfares with many commercial and retail establishments. The visibility of
Fry's signs at this location is extremely important to the success of Fry's
business.”
O
K R E N T
A
S S O C I A T E S
,
I
N C
.
FRY’S
PAGE 9
August 2014
(5) That the conditions upon which the requested variation is based would not
be applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification.
As before, the staff report makes reference to “physical hardship,” while denying
the existence of unique circumstances, of which there are many.
“If the variation were granted where no PHYSICAL HARDSHIPS or unique
circumstances exist then the variation would be applicable to other properties in
the B-3, General Services and Highway Business zoning district. This property is
similar to other commercial properties throughout the B-3 zoning district in the
Village”
Yet, as has been stated herein, and reiterated, Fry’s is unlike any other Downers
Grove property in a B3 zone. None of the big boxes on Butterfield Road (or
Ogden Avenue, for that matter) are at all similar to Fry’s.
(6) That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not resulted from the actions of
the owner.
The staff report states, “There is no established hardship or difficulty for the
petitioner to install signage that complies with the Sign Ordinance.” This
statement is completely beside the point because it (presumably) refers to the
relatively simple act of installing new signs.
The hardship derives from the reduction in highway exposure that Fry’s would
suffer if the new sign regulations were to be implemented—and this is a
PARTICUALR HARDSHIP, unique to Fry’s, not a PHYSICAL one.
Fry’s response is simple, succinct and valid, “The current difficulty faced by Fry's
as a result of the 2005 Amendment has not resulted from the actions of Fry's or
the Property's owner.” In fact, Fry’s did nothing at all which led to the creation
of the current situation.
The non-conformity of Fry’s signs is the direct result of the action of the Village
in changing the sign regulations soon after the establishment of the Fry’s store.
(7) That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and
air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion in the public
streets, or increase the danger of fires, or endanger the public safety, or
substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
It is noted that the variation, if approved, changes nothing. The current ambient
light and air supply will be unaffected, as will traffic conditions, or fire safety
and public safety in general. The staff suggestion that maintenance of the current
signs “may diminish the property values of adjacent properties that have to
comply with the sign ordinance,” is highly questionable. Fry’s is well-removed
O
K R E N T
A
S S O C I A T E S
,
I
N C
.
FRY’S
PAGE 10
August 2014
from nearby improvements by the surrounding expressways, the broad right-ofway of Finley Road, and the vast scale of Fry’s own parking lot. At the same
time, given its visual prominence, one wonders what the impact on neighboring
property values might be if Fry’s were to close and the conditions that existed
after the failure of Auto Nation were to be restored.
An opinion of valuation impact has been prepared by Mary Linberger, appraiser.
(8) That the proposed variation will not alter the land use characteristics of the
district.
This standard is about land use, not signs; and in this case no one is proposing
any change of land use on the subject site, or anywhere else. In fact, approval of
the variance entails no change of any kind.
The staff report assertion that approval of the proposed variation “could lead to
the approval of other sign variations for increased sign size along Finley Road or
other commercial corridors,” is baseless. The approval of the Fry’s variance has
no relevance to other signs on other properties as the variation process considers
each case on its particular merits—and the particular attributes of the Fry’s site
are unique. In addition, sign size, per se, is not a land use matter.
(9) That the granting of the variation requested will not confer on the owner any
special privilege that is denied by this Zoning Ordinance to other lands or
structures in the same district.
Staff report: If the variation were granted, it would confer a special privilege to
the owner. There are no PHYSICAL HARDSHIPS or unique circumstances that limits
the petitioner’s ability to install signs that comply with the Sign Ordinance.
Response:
“Physical hardship” is not in the terminology of the ordinance. The
new ordinance creates a “particular hardship” relating to the continued
successful operation of Fry’s. However, the circumstances that are unique to the
applicant’s case include the scale of the development, it location in an
expressway interchange (highway exposure on three sides), sight distance
between signs and expressway traffic, expressway speeds, and geographical
distribution of customer base.
Staff report: If this variation is granted, then the petitioner would be given a
special privilege for their signs as compared to other similar businesses
throughout the Village.
Response:
There are NO similarly situated businesses anywhere else in
Downers Grove. The applicant has a right to a variance, if the standards are met.
This is not a privilege.
O
K R E N T
A
S S O C I A T E S
,
I
N C
.
FRY’S
V.
PAGE 11
August 2014
CONCLUSION
Evidence presented in the foregoing clearly establishes that Fry’s is characterized
by a unique set of attributes not shared by any other retail businesses in Downers
Grove.
1.
Fry’s serves a regional market. The Downers Grove store is one of only
two in the Midwestern states of Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana. The
Fry’s store in Indiana is in suburban Indianapolis, more than 200 miles from
Downers Grove. The big box retailers on Butterfield Road have numerous
outlets in the region and essentially serve local markets.
2.
Fry’s is the largest retail business in Downers Grove with the largest site
(16.9 acres), the largest single story building (151,800 SF), and the largest parking
lot (829 spaces).
3.
Fry’s has the longest property perimeter of any business in Downers
Grove (3471 feet). It has arterial or expressway frontage on three sides (2849.5
feet—more than on half mile.) The east side of the building has double arterial
visibility (Reagan Tollway and Finley Road).
4.
Located in the midst of an expressway interchange, Fry’s current signs are
commensurate with the need to be readable at greater distances to cars traveling
at higher rates of speed than do the big boxes on Butterfield Road.
5.
Reducing Fry’s signs to bring them into conformity with the new
regulations will do nothing to advance the stated purposes of the sign ordinance
and may actually cause harm by reducing the store’s visibility to first time
customers. The aesthetics of sign reduction have not been duly considered, but
conforming signs would be grossly inconsistent with the scale of the building.
As noted, conforming signs would cover less than .5% of the building’s exterior,
thereby reducing the structure to an anonymous, monolith almost completely
lacking in texture or color.
The attributes of Fry’s enormous scale, unequaled expressway and arterial
frontage, need to establish its identity at distance and multi-state market niche
would result in particular hardships no other retailer in Downers Grove would
experience if the new sign regulations were to be strictly applied.
O
K R E N T
A
S S O C I A T E S
,
I
N C
.
SUBJECT:
TYPE:
SUBMITTED BY:
ZBA-15-14
444 Wilson Street
Sign Variation
Kelley Chrisse
Planner
REQUEST
The petitioner is seeking the following setback variations from Section 9.050B1(b) of the Zoning Ordinance:
1. A monument sign setback that is 6.42 feet along Prairie Avenue where 10 feet is required; and
2. A monument sign setback that is 7.33 feet along Fairview Avenue where 10 feet is required.
NOTICE
GENERAL INFORMATION
OWNER/
APPLICANT:
St. Mary of Gostyn Parish
444 Wilson Street
Downers Grove, IL 60515
EXISTING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
PROPERTY SIZE:
PIN:
R-4, Single Family Residence
Institutional
116,028 square feet (2.66 acres)
09-08-222-018
ZONING
NORTH:
SOUTH:
EAST:
WEST:
FUTURE LAND USE
Single Family Residential
Institutional/Public/Train
Parks & Open Space
Institutional/Public/Train
ANALYSIS
SUBMITTALS
Development:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Project Narrative Letter
Partial Plat of Survey
Partial Site Plans
ZBA-15-14, 444 Wilson Street
August 27, 2014
Page 2
5. Sign Drawing
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Prairie and Fairview Avenues and is part of the
St. Mary of Gostyn Church campus (444 Wilson Street). The campus is zoned R-4, Single Family
Residence, and is improved with a church building, surface parking lot and an underground detention basin.
The church is sited on the east side of Douglas Road between Wilson Street and Prairie Avenue with the
parking lot extending east along Prairie Avenue to Fairview Avenue.
The campus consists of a church and school on multiple lots as a result of acquiring adjacent properties
over the years to address the growing capacity and service needs. However, as part of purchasing additional
properties for expansion, the church was required to comply with stormwater management regulations. The
detention basin was constructed in the mid-1990s at the eastern edge of the church campus (along Fairview
Avenue) and serves as a reservoir to hold the stormwater runoff before being discharged into the Village’s
stormwater system. Given that the grade elevation of the property drops from 750 on the west to 732 on
the east, the underground detention basin is situated at the lowest elevation to adequately capture runoff
before being discharged into the stormwater system. The underground detention basin is approximately 16
feet wide by approximately 70 feet long and 8 feet deep where the east and west walls of the basin can be
seen above ground.
The property has two existing monument signs: one at the corner of Douglas Road and Prairie Avenue and
the other at the corner of Prairie and Fairview Avenues. The monument sign at the corner of Douglas Road
and Prairie Avenue is compliant with the Zoning Ordinance. The subject monument sign is located at the
corner of Prairie and Fairview Avenues and measures 20 square feet in area and is 4 feet, 9 inches in height.
The sign has a 6.42 foot and 7.33 foot setback from the Prairie and Fairview Avenues rights-of-way,
respectively, where 10 feet is required per Section 9.050B1(b) of the Zoning Ordinance.
As a multi-frontage property with both a church and a school, the campus is permitted to erect two
monument signs. Each monument sign is permitted to be 6 feet tall and 20 square feet in size with up to
four lines of manual changeable copy. Both signs meet the size and height maximums. The petitioner is
proposing to maintain the existing monument sign at the corner of Prairie and Fairview Avenues in its
current location. The petitioner will comply with all other aspects of the Sign Ordinance, including the
installation of the street address on the monument sign.
The variances requested are summarized in the table below:
444 Wilson Street
1. Monument Sign Setback
(Prairie Ave.)
2. Monument Sign Setback
(Fairview Ave.)
Permitted
Proposed
10 feet minimum
6.42 feet
10 feet minimum
7.33 feet
ANALYSIS
Variation from Zoning Ordinance, Two Sign Setback Variations
As noted above, the petitioner is requesting the following variations from Section 28.9.050B1(b) of the
Municipal Code:
1. A sign setback variation to maintain the existing monument sign located approximately 6.42 feet
from the north property line (Prairie Avenue) where 10 feet is required; and
2. A sign setback variation to maintain the existing monument sign located approximately 7.33 feet
from the east property line (Fairview Avenue) where 10 feet is required.
August 27, 2014
Page 3
Staff finds that there are unique circumstances associated with this property that warrant granting the
requested variations (1 and 2) for the following reasons:
1. The location of the underground detention basin along the east edge of the site prohibits the
installation of a sign meeting the 10 foot setback requirements. If the sign were to meet the 10 foot
setback from both property lines, the monument sign would be on top of the underground detention
basin. Any penetrations of the underground detention basin would impact its structural integrity.
Additionally, the basin is not deep enough for a sign foundation to be installed on top of it while
still providing adequate support for the sign.
2. The existing foundation is connected to the north wall of the underground detention basin. If the
existing monument sign structure and foundation were removed, the north wall of the detention
basin could be damaged possibly impacting the structural integrity of the basin. Additionally, in
order to meet the 10 foot required setback from Fairview Avenue, the sign would still be located
immediately adjacent to the north wall of the underground detention basin. Due to the proximity
to the basin, however, the setback from the north property line (Prairie Avenue) may have to be
reduced further to prevent any potential damage to the north wall of the basin.
3. If the sign were moved to exceed the required 10 foot setback from Fairview, it would need to be
approximately 17 feet from the east property line (Fairview Avenue) to clear the underground
detention basin and avoid structural issues with the basin.
4. If the sign were to fully comply with the sign ordinance, including setbacks, the visibility of the
monument sign would be restricted by the mounded earth on top of the underground utility basin
and the three foot grade difference between the parking lot and Fairview Avenue. The existing
monument sign sits at a higher grade elevation than the parking lot due to the mounded earth from
the underground utility basin.
Based on the analysis below, staff recommends approval of the monument sign setback variation requests
(1 and 2).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The petitioner has outlined the request in the attached narrative letter and supplemental drawings. The
petitioner will further address the proposal and justification to support the requested variations to the Board
at the public hearing.
Sign variations require evaluation per Section 28.12.090 of the Municipal Code, Standards and Review
Criteria: “No variation may be approved unless the variation to be approved is consistent with the spirit
and intent of this zoning ordinance and that strict compliance with the subject provisions would result in
practical difficulties or particular hardships for the subject property owner. The consideration of whether
a variation request has met the standards of practical difficulties or particular hardships must include all of
the following findings from the evidence presented:”
(1) The subject property cannot yield a reasonable return if required to comply with the regulations that
apply to it.
The visibility of a code-compliant monument sign would be limited based on the existence of the
underground detention basin along Fairview Avenue. The requested 6.42 feet and 7.33 feet setbacks from
Prairie and Fairview Avenues, respectively, provide St. Mary of Gostyn adequate identification and
visibility in its current location. If forced to comply, the setbacks for the monument sign would be 10 feet
and approximately 17 feet from Prairie and Fairview Avenues, respectively to ensure the structural integrity
of the detention basin is not affected. The required setbacks may reflect a modest reduction in the
property’s yield compared with similar properties in the district. This standard is met.
The unique circumstances of this site are related to the location of the underground detention basin, which
creates a physical hardship to locate the sign that meets the setback requirements while providing adequate
August 27, 2014
Page 4
visibility. The large parking lot supports the needs of the church, but the large area of impervious surface
necessitates proper stormwater management that is being provided via the underground detention basin.
The underground detention basin was located at the lowest point on the site, which is at the corner of Prairie
and Fairview Avenues, creating a physical hardship that is due to unique circumstances. This standard is
met.
If the monument sign setback requests are granted, it will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The monument sign would provide similar visibility as that afforded to other religious institutions
throughout the Village. The unique site characteristics limit the applicability of the variations which would
preclude sign changes to other locations. This standard is met.
(4) That the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the subject property
would result in a particular hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if
the strict letter of the regulations were carried out.
Other properties with religious assembly uses do not typically have topographical challenges that
necessitate stormwater detention to be located at the corner of the property, thereby restricting the location
of a monument sign. The location of the detention basin and the fact that it raises the grade of the property
is a unique physical characteristic. The conditions at this location result in a physical hardship for the
owner, not a mere inconvenience. This standard is met.
(5) That the conditions leading to the need of the requested variation are not applicable, generally, to other
properties within the same zoning classification.
Based on the uniqueness of the underground detention basin, the sign setback variations would not be
applicable, generally, to other properties in the R-4 zoning district. The location of the basin precludes the
petitioner’s ability to place a sign 10 feet from either property line. This standard is met.
(6) That the alleged difficulty or hardship was not created by the current property owner.
The hardship is the result of the topographical constraints of the site that necessitated the location of the
underground detention basin at the lowest point on the site. This was a Village requirement that the current
owner complied with when the property was expanded in the mid-1990s. The location of the basin is in
the most practical location to provide stormwater management required for this property. The petitioner
did not create this hardship. This standard is met.
(7) That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of air to adjacent property, or
substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety, or substantially
diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
Staff finds that the monument sign setback variation requests will not have an impact on providing adequate
light and air to surrounding properties, public safety or neighboring property values. There would be no
change from the existing condition if the variations are granted. This standard is met.
(8) That the proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the area.
If granted, the requested sign setback variations would not alter the land use characteristics of the
neighborhood. The stormwater detention basin is unique to the property and would not lead to additional
similar variations within the area. This standard is met.
(9) That the granting of the variation will not confer on the subject property owner any special privilege
that is not available to other properties or structures in the same district.
If this request was granted, it would not confer a special privilege to the petitioner. The granting of this
variation would permit the applicant to maintain a sign that provides adequate identification and visibility
for a site that required an underground detention basin along Fairview Avenue due to the grading of the
August 27, 2014
Page 5
property. Without an adequately visible monument sign at the corner of Prairie and Fairview Avenues,
the church cannot enjoy the same visibility as other religious institutions located in residential zoning
districts. No special privilege is being conferred to the property owner. Other religious institutions
have the ability to place a monument sign 10 feet from adjacent property lines. The detention basin
eliminates this option for the petitioner. This standard is met.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the property is unique due to the location of the underground detention basin and the associated
topography restricts visibility from Fairview Avenue. The location of the underground detention basin creates
a physical hardship for the petitioner to install a code-compliant monument sign with adequate visibility. Based
on the analysis above, all standards for granting the variations are met and staff recommends approval of the
requested monument sign setback variations.
Planning Manager
SP:kc
-att
P:\P&CD\PROJECTS\ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS\2014 ZBA Petitions\ZBA-15-14 - 444 Wilson St - Sign Variation\Staff Report ZBA-1514.docx
!
CHICAGO AVE
!
442
GIERZ ST
!
509
!
513
FAIRVIEW AVE
_
^
WILSON ST
!
4708
FRANKLIN ST
!
503
!
4707
V
NA
O
LD
!
340
!
4647
!
CHICAGO AVE
!
445
!
437
!
349
!
!
405
411
!
4700
!
415
!
419
!
421
!
427
!
431
!
327
!
4707
!
440
!
436
!
426
!
430
!
412
!
416
!
420
!
424
!
4711
!
4718
!
406
!
326
!
4715
GIERZ ST
!
4725
!
435
!
427
!
431
!
423
!
419
!
4727
!
4728
!
415
FAIRVIEW AVE
!
445
!
509
!
4732
!
4733
!
4732
!
4740
!
4740
!
512
!
428
!
400
!
404
!
410
E
!
500
!
4716
!
523
!
430
!
436
!
416
!
420
E
SH 4713
!
!
4714
!
522
412
!
FLO RENCE AVE
!
512
DOUGLAS RD
!
514
!
440
!
4737
!
428
!
426
!
4744
!
416
!
422
!
327
!
4731
!
4735
!
4744
!
412
PRAIRIE AVE
!
513
!
!
4800
!
4806
!
444
!
436
!
426
!
428
!
4820
!
511
!
445
!
4831
!
435
!
433
!
429
!
425
!
413
!
515
!
4906
!
200
DOUGLAS RD
!
4844
!
4828
!
4832
!
4833
!
419
!
4835
!
4900
50 100
!
418
!
409
!
4827
!
4832
!
522
!
420
WILSON ST
!
4828
0
!
4816
!
444
!
4812
!
512
!
445
!
4809
!
4840
!
4841
!
504
!
444
!
440
!
!
432
436
!
428
!
424
!
414
!
420
!
4850
FRANKLIN ST
!
501
!
4907
!
445
!
441
!
437
!
433
!
425
!
421
!
419
!
415
!
4900
!
4906
SH
!
Feet
300
444 Wilson Street - Location Map
D
EL
ON
E
AV
!

SUBJECT:
T YPE:
SUBMITTED BY:
ZBA-16-14
1541-1561 Warren Avenue
Sign Variation
Patrick Ainsworth
Planner
REQUEST
The petitioner is seeking a variation from the Sign Ordinance in order to maintain the location of the existing
monument sign which is 10 feet from the east property line where 25 feet is required per Section 9.050B1b of the
Zoning Ordinance.
NOTICE
GENERAL INFORMATION
OWNERS:
Eileen Fitzgerald
1561 Warren Avenue
R & K Insurance Agency, Inc.
VRW Investments, LLC
908 Weatherbee Avenue
West Suburban Bank
Trust #12252
711 Westmore Avenue
Lombard, IL 60148
Warren Property Management & Development LLC
1385 Warren Avenue
APPLICANT:
The Warren Crossing Condominium Association
ZBA-16-14, 1541-1561 Warren Avenue
August 27, 2014
Page 2
EXISTING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
PROPERTY SIZE:
PINS:
M-1, Light Manufacturing
Office
23,944 square feet (0.55 acres)
09-07-221-001, -002, -003, -004, -005 and -006
ZONING
NORTH:
SOUTH:
EAST:
WEST:
FUTURE LAND USE
Single Family Residential
Parks & Open Space
Light Industrial/Business Park
Light Industrial/Business Park
ANALYSIS
SUBMITTALS
Development:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Project Narrative/Justification
Site Plan
Sign Variance Drawings
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property, commonly known as 1541-1561 Warren Avenue, is located immediately south of the
T-intersection at Wallbank Avenue and Warren Avenue. This interior lot is currently zoned M-1, Light
Manufacturing. The property contains a six unit office-condominium building with off-street surface
parking. The existing building is setback 13.55 feet from the north property line and 13.01 feet from the
east property line. The subject property has direct access to Warren Avenue with a curb cut near the
northwest corner of the property. The property also contains a 10-foot stormwater control easement running
along the entire width of the front property line.
Per the Sign Ordinance, the property is allowed one monument sign along Warren Avenue. The existing
monument sign was constructed in 2001. The 6.7 foot tall, 21 square foot monument sign is in compliance
with the Sign Ordinance except for the interior side yard setback (see Figures 1-2). The Sign Ordinance
requires a monument sign to be setback 25 feet from any interior property line (Section 9.050B1b). The
petitioner is requesting a variance from this side yard setback regulation. The variance request is
summarized in the table below:
1541-1561 Warren Avenue Required Side Yard Setback Requested
Monument Sign
25 feet
10 feet
The property immediately to the east, 1501 Warren Avenue, contains an existing stormwater retention pond
which holds the storm water run-off for both the 1501 and 1541-1561 Warren Avenue. This stormwater
retention pond is approximately 100 feet in width (see Figure 3). As identified in the Declaration of
Reciprocal Storm Water Facility Easements, the petitioner is responsible for maintaining approximately
one-third (32.128%) of this retention pond. This document was recorded with the DuPage County Recorder
of Deeds on November 20, 2000 and is attached to the petitioner’s application.
August 27, 2014
Page 3
ANALYSIS
Variation from Zoning Ordinance Sign Variation
As noted above, the petitioner is requesting a variation from Section 9.050B1b of the Zoning Ordinance to
maintain the location of the existing monument sign which is 10 feet off the side property line where 25
feet is required.
Staff finds that this property contains a unique circumstance which warrants the granting of the requested
sign variation for the following reasons:
1. This property is responsible for maintaining approximately one third of the stormwater retention
facility to the east of the subject property as cited in the Declaration of Reciprocal Storm Water
Facility Easements. This stormwater retention facility is physically located within the boundaries
of the neighboring property. This creates a unique circumstance where the subject property has to
maintain property that is not within their own physical boundaries.
If the physical property line matched the maintenance responsibility of the property, the property
line would be 33 feet to the east and the monument sign would be 43 feet from the east property
line. Therefore, the side yard setback requirement for the monument sign would be satisfied. This
type of property maintenance responsibility is not typical as compared to other similar properties
within the M-1 district and throughout the Village; and
2. The variation would not be applicable to other properties as this property has a unique circumstance
that is not found with other similar properties throughout the M-1 district or the Village.
Based on the analysis below, staff recommends approval of the variation request.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The petitioner has outlined the request in the attached justification letter, photos and drawings. The
petitioner will further address the proposal and justification to support the requested variations to the Board
at the public hearing.
Sign variations require evaluation per Section 28.12.090 of the Municipal Code, Standards and Review
Criteria: “No variation may be approved unless the variation to be approved is consistent with the spirit
and intent of this zoning ordinance and that strict compliance with the subject provisions would result in
practical difficulties or particular hardships for the subject property owner. The consideration of whether
a variation request has met the standards of practical difficulties or particular hardships must include all of
the following findings from the evidence presented:”
(1) The subject property cannot yield a reasonable return if required to comply with the regulations that
apply to it.
The property is currently yielding a reasonable return. However, the requirement to maintain a retention
pond on an adjacent property is a unique circumstance that is not applicable to other properties within the
M-1 zoning district and Village. The petitioner’s property line is in essence 33 feet to the east thereby
making his sign 43 feet from the side property line. By requiring the petitioner to relocate the existing
monument sign, the return on the petitioner’s retention pond investment is reduced because they cannot
enjoy the full benefits of maintaining 33 feet of the retention pond. This standard is met.
August 27, 2014
Page 4
There is a unique circumstance associated with this property. The subject property shares a stormwater
retention facility with the property to the east and has an established agreement to share the maintenance
of the stormwater retention facility. If the property line matched the point of responsibility for the
stormwater retention facility, the sign would be 43 feet from the property line and the 25 foot side yard
setback requirement would be satisfied. This standard is met.
If the variation is granted, it would not alter the essential character of the locality. The monument sign is
existing and conforms to all other portions of the Sign Ordinance other than the side yard setback. This
property is experiencing a unique circumstance that is only applicable to 1501 and 1541-1561 Warren
Avenue. This standard is met.
(4) That the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the subject property
would result in a particular hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if
the strict letter of the regulations were carried out.
Physical conditions exist with this specific site that results in a particular hardship for the subject property.
The petitioner is responsible for the maintenance of the stormwater retention pond which is on a
neighboring property. The physical responsibilities of maintaining this pond render the property line further
east thus creating a code-compliant sign setback. This standard is met.
(5) That the conditions leading to the need of the requested variation are not applicable, generally, to other
properties within the same zoning classification.
The conditions leading to the need of the requested variation are very specific to this property and are not
generally found with other properties within the M-1 district or the Village. There are no other nearby
properties, within the same zoning classification, that are experiencing the unique circumstance as this
property. This standard is met.
(6) That the alleged difficulty or hardship was not created by the current property owner.
The alleged difficulty to relocate the existing monument sign was not created by the current property owner
as the agreement for the shared stormwater retention facility and the physical conditions associated with
this property predates the 2005 Sign Ordinance’s adoption. This standard is met.
(7) That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of air to adjacent property, or
substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety, or substantially
diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
The approval of the proposed sign variation will not diminish or impair the property values of similar
properties within the neighborhood. The subject property’s monument sign is existing and has been in the
same location since 2001. The existing sign’s materials are similar to the building materials used on the
subject building. The monument sign will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare. The granting
of the requested variation will not negatively impact the desirability of adjacent properties. This standard
is met.
(8) That the proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the area.
The granting of a variation will not alter the essential character of the area as the variation is to maintain
the location of the existing monument sign. This monument sign matches the architecture of the subject
building and is in compliance with all other Sign Ordinance regulations. There is a unique circumstance
of the shared stormwater retention facility that limits the location of the monument sign to where it is
currently located. This variation will not set a precedent for other variations in the M-1 district or the
Village due to the unique circumstance. This standard is met.
August 27, 2014
Page 5
(9) That the granting of the variation will not confer on the subject property owner any special privilege
that is not available to other properties or structures in the same district.
If this request is granted it will not confer a special privilege to the subject property as there are physical
hardships and unique circumstances associated with this property that are not common with the properties
in the same zoning district. All businesses and properties located in the Village of Downers Grove are
responsible to accommodate for storm water as required in the Municipal Code. This particular property
contains an established agreement with the property to the east to maintain a portion of the existing
stormwater retention facilities. The agreement extends the property maintenance responsibilities beyond
their physical property boundaries and in essence relocates their property line father to the east. As such,
this circumstance is not generally found in the M-1 district. This is a unique circumstance with this property
which warrants the granting of the sign variation. The variance will not confer a special privilege. This
standard is met.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff finds there is a unique circumstance associated with this property to warrant the granting of the requested
variance. Based on the analysis above, all standards for granting the variation have been met. As such, staff
recommends approval of the requested sign variation.
Should the ZBA find that all nine standards have been met and decide to approve the requested variation,
the variance should be subject to the following conditions:
1. The monument sign shall comply with all other provisions of the Sign Ordinance.
2. All other signs shall comply with the Sign Ordinance
___________________________
Planning Manager
SP:pa
-att
P:\P&CD\PROJECTS\ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS\2014 ZBA Petitions\ZBA-16-14 - 1541-1561 Warren - Sign Variation\Staff Report ZBA16-14.docx
August 27, 2014
Figure 1 - Photo of the existing monument sign for 1541-1561 Warren Avenue.
Figure 2 - Photo of the existing stormwater retention facility that is shared between the subject
property and the property to the east.
Page 6
August 27, 2014
Figure 3- Photo shows the approximate length of the stormwater retention facility.
Page 7
!
4934
!
4935
!
1640
!
1644
!
4940
!
4941
!
4940
!
4941
!
4934
!
4939
SEELEY AVE
!
4932
!
4931
!
4931
!
4930
!
4935
WALLBANK AVE
!
4927
!
4926
!
4927
!
4930
!
4935
!
4939
!
1508
!
1416
!
4943
WARREN AVE
!
1597
!
1561
!
1541
!
1557
!
1547
!
1551
!
1549
!
1501
!
1385
GILBERT AVE
SEELEY AVE
NORTHCOTT AVE
WARREN AVE
_
^
G IL
B
ER
!
1516
!
1508
!
1436
!
1430
!
1428
!
1422
TA
0
70
140
VE
210
280
Feet
1541-1561 Warren Avenue Location Map