Minutes Archive

Overview ~ Cascade Community Foundation ~ Downtown Development Authority ~ Library Advisory Board Planning Commission ~ Township Board ~ Zoning Board of Appeals

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

MINUTES

Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals

Thursday, March 1, 2001

7:30 pm

ARTICLE 1. Chairman Wilson called the meeting to order.

Members Present: Erickson, Goldberg, Koessel, Lewis, Wilson

Members Absent: Timmons (excused).

Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Admin. Assistant Thompson, and those listed on Supplement #1.

ARTICLE 2. The agenda was approved on motion by Member Goldberg and supported by Member Lewis. The motion carried.

ARTICLE 3. The Minutes of the February 13, 2001 meeting were approved on motion by Member Koessel and supported by Member Goldberg. The motion carried.

(PUBLIC HEARING)

The applicant requested a variance of Section 7.02 of the Sign Ordinance. This variance would allow the applicant to remove an existing non-conforming sign and replace it with one that does not meet our Sign Ordinance at 5155 – 28^th - Street.

Planning Director Peterson related the property is located just west of the highway on 28^th Street. It is presently a Mobil station. The existing sign is non-conforming because it is too big and located too close to the road. Our Ordinance allows for an 80 s.f. sign based on the lot frontage and placed 25 feet back from the road right-of-way. The existing sign is located 16 feet back from the road right-of-way. Planning Director Peterson related he met with the sign contractor a few days ago and informed him that if the sign was removed, the new sign would have to come into compliance with our ordinance. The sign contractor indicated the owners are taking their sign and will be removing it. Planning Director Peterson believes the existing sign is under 30 feet tall which is our height limit. The applicant would like to place a new sign in the same location and have a larger sign than allowed. The existing sign is about 96 square feet and they would like to reduce that to 92 square feet.

Planning Director Peterson then gave a little history on the site. He related this property was the subject of a variance request in 1988. At that time we were dealing with a tall highway sign as well as changing the entire sign package. The meeting minutes from 1988 are specific as to what we allowed for all signs on the site.

Planning Director Peterson recommended approving the variance for a sign with the following stipulations: 1) the sign shall be less than 30 feet high; 2) the applicant will not be allowed to increase the sizes or number of any auxiliary signs and those should be consistent with 1988; and 3) the sign would be limited to 80 s.f.

Member Goldberg asked what is the situation with the Citgo sign we approved last year. Planning Director Peterson related when they took down their sign during last year, they had to move it back and make it smaller and also take down the 80 foot tall high rise sign. They complied with our ordinance.

Member Goldberg asked if they are in full compliance. Planning Director Peterson related yes.

Chairman Wilson related if the sign was placed where it should be at 25 feet it would be in the middle of the parking and traffic area.

Planning Director Peterson related Citgo has a little bit of landscaped edge so they were able to move their sign back.

Member Erickson asked Planning Director Peterson why he is recommending 80 s.f. when the applicant is asking for 92 s.f. Planning Director Peterson responded because 80 feet is our standard limit.

The applicant was represented by Jason Berris, Frank Berris, and Todd Knight of American Gas and Oil and Paul Kovalak of City Sign Erectors.

Jason Berris related Planning Director Peterson summed up their request. He referred to the photographs in the packet. They are asking to take the sign that you see, take off Mobil and put on Amoco. The advertising will be the same. The new sign would actually be smaller and come back three more feet than the present sign. It would remain in line with the support poles. The applicant related they pictures up and down 28^th Street of other signs and feel they are trying to better the location. They are giving up some sign area and cleaning it up.

Chairman Wilson asked the applicant if they have considered an 80 s.f. sign. Jason Berris related no, the 92 s.f. is the smallest sign they make. The price sign is 5-1/2 x 6-1/2’. They would like to keep the food shop and car wash signs at 2 x 5-1/2 feet. The sign is approximately 24 feet high to the tip of the torch. That is not anywhere near the 30 foot height limit. If the sign was moved to where it should be, the sign would be in the middle of the traffic pattern. No other signs would be added.

Member Goldberg related he thinks 80 s.f. is feasible. He then asked where is the hardship?

Frank Berris responded he went out and paced it off today. He noticed the sign is right in line with Citgo’s although the Citgo sign appears to be farther back from the street. The Red Roof Inn sign is 15 feet closer to the road. McDonald’s is 20 feet past the end of the Mobil sign.

Chairman Wilson related we are talking about the square footage of the sign. We have other people in the area who were forced to come into compliance.

Frank Berris related that is our Citgo at the corner of Old 28^th Street and Cascade Road. We do anything the township tells us to do because we are good neighbors.

Jason Berris related Mobil came to you as a package. They must have added some of these 2 x 4 signs. Mr. Berris offered to give us some of the 2 x 4 signs in exchange for ten s.f. on the pole sign. If we gave up some of those, we would be willing to do that.

Member Erickson asked do you need that much sign area. Jason Berris responded not really, they are standard signs.

Frank Berris related Amoco has certain image guidelines that we have to follow. We can’t make the signs smaller.

Member Erickson asked are you aware of other communities that have reduced this part of the sign? Is there an existing 80 s.f. sign in any community or are we the only one in Cascade Township that has such a requirement? Planning Director Peterson related the Amoco in the Cascade village area has a smaller sign.

Member Goldberg related his concern is when we change an ordinance we recognize we can’t force people to tear down what they have. We can’t pass an ordinance and have people immediately come into compliance. But they have to when they take their sign down, etc. Over a 25 or 30 year period it will all be in compliance. A consistent board will have properties come into compliance absent special hearings. Member Goldberg related it seems to him if we allow you to keep what you have we are not doing our job. If we did that for everybody nothing would ever come into compliance. What we need to do is require that people bring their signs into compliance. To do that here we need to take the sign and shrink it to 80 s.f. As far as location we are looking at a variance for that. Member Goldberg suggested a monopole sign located within the 25 foot.

Planning Director Peterson related we would still measure to the closest point of the sign.

Frank Berris related the sign is 15 feet off the ground.

Jason Berris related he would like to offer to reduce some other signs such as those on the pump islands, etc. to try to gain six square feet. He related they want it to look nice. Mr. Berris related you let Citgo go through this process and now they are closed down. We are good operators. We do everything by the book. We want to look nice and presentable. There is a lot more that Amoco makes us put up.

A discussion then ensued at the board table.

Member Lewis related the applicant has done a wonderful job. He appreciates the fact that the applicant wants to make a beautiful station. Member Lewis related every time he goes in a station he notices signs creep up all the time. He knows additional signs will be up for short periods of time. He understands applicants like to have bigger signs when the setback is farther from the road. Smaller signs need to be closer to the road so they can be read. Member Lewis related you want to put a sign very close to the road and want it big. You can’t have it both ways. He has a difficult time with that. Member Lewis related you have a hard job to sell him on the large sign closer to the road concept.

Frank Berris asked we are allowed 80 s.f.? We are asking for a little more plus five feet to allow the sign to remain where it is.

Jason Berris related asked what if we gave up the food shop sign? That would be two feet less.

Member Erickson asked do you want to ask for 82 s.f.? That is not our job. It is a square foot matter for us. If you want to change your application, now is the time.

Frank Berris asked what do you want us to do? Our hardship is if you do not allow us to have a price sign and Amoco sign.

Member Goldberg related he thinks you have a hardship case for the location of the sign but not for meeting 80 s.f.

Frank Berris asked how many square feet are we if we have the sign and the price sign? Jason Berris responded 72 s.f.

Member Goldberg related if that is what you are asking for I am in your corner.

Planning Director Peterson related he did not receive any comments.

Member Lewis related he understands the applicant says they would like an 80 s.f. sign at the same location.

Chairman Wilson related now, we are looking at a setback variance.

Member Koessel asked can we verbally amend the request? Planning Director Peterson related if you want to work through it as two separate requests you can, but you can deal with the requests as a package.

Member Lewis related there is a rather large free standing wood building in the back. Does that remain? Mr. Berris responded yes, that stays.

Member Lewis then related in the pictures presented there is a car parked in the area where if we moved the sign back it would be in the traffic pattern. A car was there tonight when he looked at the site. Member Lewis related he can’t see where that is a traffic area when cars are parked there.

Frank Berris responded employees park in the back.

Jason Berris related pop trucks park in that area occasionally instead of in the back.

Member Lewis asked have you considered placing the sign in the center of your landscaping? Jason Berris related no.

Member Lewis related he believes the sign could be placed within the landscaping and it would be out of line from the Citgo sign. Member Lewis related he is still concerned with cars parking in the "traffic pattern".

Chairman Wilson related she missed the last meeting but would like to inquire about the educational classes. The pamphlet indicated on-site seminars and training could be done at a lower cost. She asked if it would be beneficial to have training in our township and invite neighboring communities to join us. Planning Director Peterson related he would look into that.

Respectfully submitted,

James Koessel, Secretary

JK:MJT

Government  ~  Departments  ~  Community
Business  ~  Reference Desk  ~  What's Happening
Help  ~  Home  ~  Search  ~  Site Map

Comments? Feedback? Questions? Click here to send an email.

Site Use Policy

This page last modified 06/08/04.
All information © 2003-2004Cascade Township, Michigan