Zoning Board of
Appeals Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
7:00 p.m.
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Vaughn called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Lewis
Members Absent: Crawley (unexcused), 1st Alternate Neal (excused), 2nd
Alternate Richards (excused)
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Recording Secretary Hern,
and members from the public.
ARTICLE 2. Pledge of Allegiance
ARTICLE 3. Chairman Vaughn requested a motion for approval of the
August 14, 2007 Agenda.
Member Lewis motioned for the approval of the August 14th ZBA
Agenda with support from Member Casey. All were in favor, none
opposed. The motion carried, August 14, 2007 Agenda approved.
ARTICLE 4. Chairman Casey requested a motion for approval or
corrections of the May 1, 2007 Meeting Minutes.
Member Lewis requested a correction on Page 5, fourth paragraph
down first sentence should read as: "….the neighbor to the
west, in all fairness, would not care if the building is there due to
the thick woods…" and he also noted in the following paragraph,
second sentence to remove the words "the building" as they
are typed twice in the same paragraph.
No further comments or corrections.
Member Lewis motioned to approve the May 1, 2007 ZBA Meeting
Minutes as corrected, supported by Member Beahan. All in favor with
none opposed. May 1, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes were
approved as corrected.
ARTICLE 5. Case #07-2887: Longhorn Steakhouse
Property Address: 5088 28th Street SE
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The Applicant is seeking a variance that would allow additional wall
signage and to move the existing ground sign closer to 28th Street.
Planning Director Peterson noted this case is really two (2)
separate variances for signage, one regarding wall signs and one
regarding the 28th Street sign. Included within the Zoning Boards'
packets is Section X of the Waterfall Shoppes P.U.D. Ordinance for the
Board's review. Essentially, this section regulates all the signage in
the development, including the wall signage and ground signage for
Longhorn Steakhouse.
When this project was presented to the Township the signage was
part of an overall package and was considered along with the rezoning
of the property. Some concessions were made by both the developer and
Township to develop the current project/regulations, including
signage.
Staff has included the minutes from the site plan approval for
Longhorn within the packets and the signage was discussed at this
meeting.
The current P.U.D. Ordinance allows for both one (1) ground sign
and one (1) wall sign. The regulations were drafted to be consistent
with the Township's current sign code. The table included in Staff's
report regulated the ground sign for this site.
The Applicant is requesting that the current sign simply be allowed
to have a 10-foot setback from the 28th Street property line.
The current sign is slightly larger than 30-square feet and is
5-feet tall. Using the table in the packet, the current sign could be
located no closer than 15-feet back from the 28th Street property.
In order to move a sign closer, the Applicant would need to simply
reduce the sign area of the sign to 30-square feet or less. Staff
recommends that the Zoning Board deny the variance request since the
Applicant already has the ability to move the sign in a location they
prefer with a simple adjustment to the sign face.
Chairman Vaughn asked how the sign was measured and Planning
Director Peterson said the sign measurement draws a box around all the
letters.
Planning Director then provided Staff's report regarding the Wall
Signage.
Wall signs for this site are regulated as follows:
The permit for the existing sign states that the sign is an 80-square
footwall sign on the 28th street side of the building. This is the
maximum size given that they have 80-feet of store frontage.
The Applicant is requesting one (1) additional wall sign on the
rear of the building. They have not indicated the size of this
additional sign.
In addition to the permitted wall and ground signs the P.U.D.
Ordinance also allows for wall directional signs (one sign up to
20-square feet) and site directional signs (up to two signs no larger
than 2-square feet each). Staff would suggest that these two (2)
methods be used instead of granting any variances.
Since this is part of the larger Waterfall project, there have been
no similar sign variances. Over the years it has generally been
difficult to obtain a sign variance unless the Applicant is willing to
give up something (number of signs, size, location, etc.). It has been
even more difficult to obtain when the sign package was part of the
overall package such as this.
Staff has provided the Findings of Fact and there are no exceptions
in granting the variance and believes there are existing options for
the Applicant to pursue.
Staff recommends, since the Developer has other signage options,
that both the ground sign variance and the wall sign variance be
denied.
Chairman Vaughn opened the meeting for questions of Staff from the
Zoning Board. There were no questions.
Chairman Vaughn invited the Applicant to add any comments to
Staff's report.
Applicant Brett Mashchak of Rear Hospitality National Inc. from
Atlanta, GA, said he has heard Staff's explanation of this and has
driven the area looking at the buildings and noted that Staples has
two (2) wall signs. He also acknowledged that their existing wall sign
is not 80-square feet and believes it is approximately 46-square feet.
If the past precedent has been set to allow signage to be split,
Longhorn is willing to divide the square-footage so the rear sign and
the current wall sign do not accede 80-square feet for the overall
building. The thing they are discovering for this center and the way
it was brought in, it does have access from the street behind the
building and there is a large synergy with Target and other stores in
the rear of the property. The Applicant is trying to provide
recognition to the rear of the center. The manager has communicated
with him that at night, when you look for Longhorn, one focuses on the
McDonald's that is across the street; they are trying to increase
Longhorn's visibility from the rear of the development.
Regarding the front monument sign, the Applicant would like to move
the sign out of the trees a bit so it may be visible with only a
5-foot sign. It is setback into the parking area on an island and when
the cars park in the sign location, it is no longer visible from any
great distance until you are on the site. The Applicant is willing to
work with the Township for the monument sign's relocation to make it
more visible to the traffic on 28th Street.
Mr. Mashchak noted that the store has been open for a little more
than one year and is only bringing in 50% of the revenue anticipated
for the location and they are losing money on this store. They are
looking to increase their visibility to help improve the store's
revenue.
Member Lewis commented that he has eaten at Longhorn and once
patrons know where the location is, they do not need a sign to get
them there. He is sorry to hear they are not generating the business
they had hoped for but does not believe that this is due to the
current sign situation. Member Lewis noted today's economy is playing
a factor in their revenue as it is a great restaurant and hopes that
word-of-mouth will recognize the quality of their food and more
important than the signs themselves.
Member Lewis noted that there are two (2) sign situations being
presented and requested that the Zoning Board review each request one
at a time.
Member Lewis asked the Applicant if he heard correctly regarding
the wall signage and that the Applicant is willing to divide the wall
signage into a 40-foot sign in the front and back? Mr. Mashcak said he
is not sure what the current square footage is of the front sign, he
believes it is 46-square feet and is will to have one for the rear of
the building at 34-square feet, or whatever is necessary not to exceed
a total of 80-square feet combined between the two (2) wall signs.
Planning Director Peterson commented that if the wall signage was
divided between the front and rear signs, this is not an unusual
exception to what has been allowed in the past. The sign permit that
was issued does allow for an 80-square foot sign and believes the
Applicant's current sign is more than 46-square feet and referred to
the information included within the Board's packet. According to the
applicants own information the sign appears to be a little over 50 sq
ft, which would leave a little over 20 sq ft to used in the back,
which is not far off from the allowed 20-square feet for a directional
sign that the Township does allow.
Member Lewis noted that this is a very unique situation in where so
much traffic is coming from both sides of the building, it is not on a
corner. He does not want to disturb the ordinance in granting over
80-square feet and consider some relief and not to set precedence.
Planning Director Peterson said that if the Board used that
philosophy, the Applicant is not that far from the 20-foot directional
signage that is allowed by the Township. If the Zoning Board were to
move in this direction, Staff requests that the exact size of the
front sign be known so that Staff is aware of the leftover square
footage to ensure proper size of the additional signage.
Member Beahan motioned to open the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Casey. All in favor with none opposed, the Public Hearing was
opened.
Chairman Vaughn asked Staff if they received any public comments,
phone calls or letters regarding the project. Planning Director
Peterson said the Township has not received any phone calls or letters
regarding the project.
Chairman Vaughn invited any public members to speak regarding their
comments of the project. No public comments.
Member Beahan motioned to close the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Casey. All in favor to close the Public Hearing, with none
opposed. Public Hearing closed.
Chairman Vaughn opened the meeting for Board discussion.
Member Casey asked Staff that if a comprise would be developed
administratively or would the compromise be established based on the
Zoning Board's actions? Planning Director Peterson said Staff would
work on the compromise based on the Zoning Board's actions. Staff's
suggestion is for the Zoning Board to stay within the 80-square feet
if this is the direction they pursue.
Member Casey noted that, personally, given the work the committee
had prior to the Planning Commission, he prefers not to disturb the
P.U.D. due to setting precedent. Member Casey asked if there is neon
lighting around the building already? Planning Director Peterson said
there is and Member Casey noted that in some Townships that is
considered as signage, acknowledging that Cascade Township does not
consider the neon lighting as such.
Chairman Vaughn said he drove behind the restaurant and noted that
with the exception of Cosco, there is not another sign back in the
area and no building is identified in the rear direction. If the
Applicant's sign were allowed, it could open the door for the other
businesses to make the same request. He noted the road in the rear is
not a main artery, if it were to become one, maybe the rear signage
would be appropriate at that time; but he did not see very much
traffic on the rear road when he was driving back there. Planning
Director Peterson noted the Applicant is correct in saying that
Staples does have an additional sign but it is facing west.
Member Lewis based his comments earlier on hearing that there may
be approximately 34-square feet leftover and now he is hearing that it
is more like 23-square feet. He agrees not to disturb the P.U.D. and
the Zoning Board could offer the 20-square foot directional sign that
is included within the P.U.D. to the Applicant.
Chairman Vaughn summarized his understanding that within the
context of the P.U.D., the 20-square feet sign would be acceptable on
the back of the building. Planning Director Peterson said that is
correct and the directional sign could really be allowed on any wall
of the building.
Member Lewis motioned for the request for a variance to allow for
additional wall signage at 5088 28th Street SE, Longhorn Steakhouse,
be denied in as much that the P.U.D. has been used different in
comprises to reach a total conclusion and does not warrant upsetting
that particular P.U.D.; Member Casey seconded the motion.
Chairman Vaughn called the motion to question. All in favor with
none opposed. Motion carried.
Chairman Vaughn opened the meeting for Board discussion regarding
the monument sign.
Member Lewis understands that the location of the signage on 28th
Street is dictated by the size of the sign, therefore, what he has
heard tonight is that if the Applicant were to reduce the sign area
and height, he could move it closer to 28th Street and Planning
Director Peterson said that is correct and the Applicant is not off by
much. Chairman Vaughn asked if the sign's height is acceptable, it is
just the area that contains the lettering that needs adjusting. Staff
confirmed that is correct.
Chairman Vaughn asked if the distance from the property line or
28th Street is roughly the same as the Starbuck's sign and how far
forward would it go? Planning Director Peterson noted there is a jog
to the right-of-way making a difference in the right-of-way between
the east side of the right-of-way and the west side, so no, not
similar to Starbuck's. Planning Director Peterson referred to the site
plan included in the Board's packets that shows the jog he is
referring to.
Member Beahan asked if the sign would impair vision if moved and
Planning Director Peterson does not believe so.
Chairman Vaughn noted that when he drove by, he did not have any
problems seeing the monument sign and the parking lot was quite full
at the time. He acknowledges that the Applicant is trying to increase
revenue by relocating their signage but did not have any problems
seeing the sign.
Member Lewis noted that the Applicant does have other options
available to them and the options available are to conform within the
P.U.D. The Zoning Board's job is to stay within the ordinance and
there is not much of a hardship on the Applicant if all he has to do
is make the lettering on the sign smaller to conform within the P.U.D.
in order to move it. The ordinance speaks clearly in its formula for
front signage and setbacks that is used fairly throughout the
Township. There is no reason the Applicant cannot move the sign
forward if he reduces the size as dictated by the ordinance.
Member Lewis motioned that the second request to move the existing
ground sign closer to 28th Street be denied recognizing that there is
an option available to the Applicant to do as requested and that be
done (i.e. the sign be smaller so it can be closer to 28th Street) and
Member Casey seconded the motion.
Chairman Vaughn opened for discussion of the motion. No discussion.
All in favor with none opposed, request for variance denied.
Chairman Vaughn encouraged the Applicant to pursue other signage
options that were discussed.
ARTICLE 6. Case # 07-2887: Midwest Sign Company
Property Address: 5925 28th Street SE
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The Applicant is seeking a modification of a 1995 variance to allow
for a new ground sign.
Planning Director Peterson noted this is the strip mall that once
had Boston Market in it as the anchor store next to Wal-Mart.
This case is unique in the sense that the variance that was granted
in 1995 was a variance from the sign ordinance and at that time, the
variance that was granted, the Applicant was requesting additional
square-footage in their wall signs. When that was permitted, it was
based on the facts that:
1) The signage was calculated based on one sq of signage for each
lineal foot of store frontage
2) The Applicant also gave up their right to have a separate
ground/pylon sign.
In 1997 the Township amended the sign code and essentially followed
the same formula for allowed wall signage.
What makes this case unique is the fact that if the development
came into the Township today, the developer would be allowed the same
wall signage and would be permitted without the need for a variance.
Not only would they not need a variance, they would also be allowed to
have a ground/pylon sign up to 30-feet tall and 125-square feet in
size.
The Applicant is requesting a ground sign that is 80-square feet
and 12-feet tall.
In order to accommodate the sign, some trees would have to be
removed or relocated in order to see the sign. The Township would need
a detailed plan showing the location of the replanted trees. If any of
the trees were on the Wal-Mart property, the Township would need a
letter from Wal-Mart agreeing to the relocated location prior to a
sign permit being issued.
A second variance the Zoning Board is to consider as part of this
request is regarding the location of the ground sign. The plan is to
locate this sign at least 25-feet from the 28th Street right-of-way,
which meets the code requirement. However, the Applicant would also
like to place the sign only two to three feet east of the east
property line; the required setback is 25-feet.
The property line in question was created when this project and the
Wal-Mart were developed. Staff is not sure for the reason of the odd
property line configuration, but without the variance the sign would
have to be located another 70-feet north where it would probably be
raised if it was to be located there.
Staff's report within the Zoning Boards' packets contains the
Findings of Facts and notes that the sign would be allowed today at an
even great size and there would be no adverse precedent set.
Staff's recommendation is in support of the modification of the
original variance to allow for the ground sign. Staff is also in
support of the setback variance since the Applicant is willing to give
up some of the size and height if it were put in an acceptable
location. Staff would suggest adding the condition that the Township
receives a landscape plan showing the relocated trees and approval
from Wal-Mart if the trees are on Wal-Mart property.
Chairman Vaughn noted this is a two-part variance request and
Planning Director Peterson said it is:
1) Allowing for a larger wall sign
2) Allow for a ground sign with a variance in its placement.
Staff has included within the Boards' packets a picture of the
proposed ground sign.
Chairman Vaughn opened the meeting for questions of Staff from the
Zoning Board. No questions.
Chairman Vaughn invited the Applicant to add their comments to
Staff's report.
Applicant Mark Postema of Midwest Sign said they are simply before
the Zoning Board requesting either a modification to their current
variance or allow the developer to follow the current Sign Ordinance
The east property line is odd and they are seeking a variance for
the side property line of the property. It is important to know that
they plan to remain off 28th Street at 25-feet and are seeking a
variance for the side yard at two to three-feet. The proposed sign
location is approximately 25-feet from the curbed drive on the
property and will not impede vision of driver's.
Member Lewis asked the Applicant if he is removing trees. Mr.
Postema said there are trees where they want to put the sign with one
(1) tree on the property of the plaza and two (2) trees on Wal-Mart's
property. There has been discussion with the owner of the Wal-Mart
property in moving the two (2) trees and are asking the developer to
provide things that they cannot give them (i.e. including a spot on
this sign for a future office development) and the developer has not
granted their request since it is not their right to grant it. At this
time, they are not sure if they will be moving the Wal-Mart trees but
they will move the one on the plaza's property and it's new location
is being planned for the east end of the building in the green area.
Member Beahan asked if the trees were moved, would they still meet
the landscaping ordinance and Planning Director Peterson said it
would.
Chairman Vaughn asked the Applicant how far along are they in their
discussions with Wal-Mart regarding moving the trees and Mr. Postema
said their conversations have stalled due to people being on vacation.
Member Casey asked Mr. Postema if he is working with a different
property owner than Wal-Mart's property owner and Mr. Postema said
that is correct, Talsma Enterprises.
Member Casey asked if a business can sell a sign plate to someone
without 28th Street frontage and Planning Director Peterson said no,
the request needs to go before the Zoning Board.
No further questions.
Member Beahan motioned to open the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Casey. All in favor with none opposed, the Public Hearing was
opened.
There were no public members wishing to comment.
Chairman Vaughn asked if the Township Offices received any phone
calls or letters regarding the project and Planning Director Peterson
said they have not received any.
Member Beahan motioned to close the Public Hearing supported by
Member Casey. All in favor with none opposed, the Public Hearing was
closed.
Chairman Vaughn noted the Zoning Board would review the cases with
the variance for allowing a sign first, sign location second.
Member Lewis said he does not want to see another tall pole sign on
28th Street and if he understands this correctly, and by passing this
variance, that could not happen, is that correct. Planning Director
Peterson said the Applicant would not be allowed to have two (2)
signs. Member Lewis clarified that the Zoning Board would be granting
a variance limited to a ground sign and Planning Director Peterson
said that is correct.
Member Lewis asked if it would be possible, in the future, a new
owner takes over and he does not want a ground sign but a pylon sign,
could that be done? Planning Director Peterson said that if a new
owner wanted to remove the ground sign and place the pole sign in the
back that could be allowed depending on how specific the variance is.
Member Lewis feels very strongly about pole signs and does not want
to see more of them.
Chairman Vaughn noted that the ground sign is more consistent with
the other signs in the area.
Member Lewis motioned that the request to seek modification of the
1995 variance to allow for a new ground sign be approved as long as
the sign offers some consistency with the surrounding area that is
there and also bring the Applicant into compliance with the present
ordinance that exists with the condition:
1. No pole sign would be allowed for future use at this location.
Member Beahan supported the motion.
Chairman Vaughn called the motion to question.
Member Casey asked if Member Lewis would accept an amendment to the
motion. If he read the Applicant's request correctly, they are
requesting an 8-foot tall ground sign with 80-square feet; Planning
Director Peterson noted that the sign is actually 12-feet tall that
includes a 4-foot base and 80-square feet. Member Casey wonders if the
sign's dimensions should be listed in the motion.
Member Lewis amended his motion to include that the request to seek
modification of the 1995 variance to allow for a new ground sign be
approved as long as the sign offers some consistency with the
surrounding area that is there and also bring the Applicant into
compliance with the present ordinance that exists with the condition:
1. No pole sign would be allowed for future use at this location.
2. The ground sign is to be a maximum of 12-feet high with an
80-square feet of sign area.
Member Beahan supported the amendments.
Chairman Vaughn called to question the amended motion. All in favor
with none opposed. Motion carried.
Chairman Vaughn opened the meeting for discussion regarding the
placement of the sign.
Member Lewis noted that Staff has placed a condition on the request
noting that an agreement letter must be received from Wal-Mart in
order to remove trees. If the variance were granted then Wal-Mart's
agreement for the moving of the trees on their property would have to
be included as a condition. Planning Director Peterson noted that if
trees are being moved, the Township would request an updated
landscaping plan to ensure they are still meeting landscaping
requirements.
Member Lewis noted that if a trees dies, he hopes it would be
replaced with the same kind of tree. He noted the landscaping was
laid-out nicely and there is good growth.
Member Lewis noted there are really two (2) issues, the moving of
the trees and the variance for the side yard of two to three feet.
Member Beahan asked if the trees are still at the size where they
can be moved or if they are too big. Planning Director Peterson
believes the trees would be fine. Member Beahan asked if the trees die
in a year or two would they have to be replaced? Planning Director
Peterson said they would be replaced with the same type of tree.
Member Lewis referred to the 2-foot variance to the east lot line,
what makes this unique?
Planning Director Peterson reviewed the unusual layout of the site
and if the property line came down the center from Charlevoix Woods
Court, the Applicant's proposed sign placement would be acceptable.
Mr. Postema showed a defined drawing of the lot line to the Zoning
Board. Planning Director Peterson said Wal-Mart was designed prior to
his being the Planning Director but it appears that Wal-Mart wanted
control of both sides of the drive and provides them more 28th Street
frontage.
Member Lewis noted that this property line is very unique lot line
and there is no place to put the sign on 28th Street and still
function as a commercial sign.
Member Lewis motioned that the request for a 23-foot variance on
the east property line to place a sign be granted due this being the
only location available on the property for the sign to function as a
business sign due to the unique configurations of the property, with
the conditions:
1) Any trees being moved stay on the property
2) The Applicant is to provide the Township a revised landscape plan
showing the relocation of the trees
3) Written approval from Wal-Mart allowing the trees to be moved if
the trees are on Wal-Mart property.
Member Casey seconded the motion.
Chairman Vaughn called the motion to question. All were in favor
with none opposed. Motion carried.
ARTICLE 7. Case # 07-2888: D & W
Property Address: 6428 28th Street SE
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The Applicant is seeking a modification of an existing variance that
would allow for additional wall signage.
Member Casey disclosed that in his 20-years employment with Spartan
Stores, he was closely connected with this property's development
though he has been retired now for seven (7) years. He is very
familiar with the property but is no longer connected to it. The ZBA
members discussed and felt that this did not present any conflict of
interest.
Planning Director Peterson noted the Applicant is requesting a
modification of an existing variance.
A variance was issued to this property in 1998 for wall signage.
That variance allowed for the installation of up to four (4) wall
signs totaling no more than 207-square feet.
The site is part of a multi-tenant strip center with D & W on
the end.
The developer has recently completed some façade renovations and
have been issued a permit for three (3) wall signs totaling 202-square
feet and are now requesting a fourth sign that is 15-square feet. This
is an increase from the 1998 variance of 8-square feet.
Staff has included within the Boards' packets the approval letter
from 1998 as well as the minutes from the case.
Planning Director Peterson noted that essentially the variance was
approved because as a multi-tenant building, D & W would be
permitted one (1) wall sign up to 336-square feet. D & W agreed to
install less than the permitted 336-square feet in exchange for the
ability to install more than one (1) wall sign.
Since that 1998 variance, D & W has remodeled and by doing so,
they removed some window space that was being used for signage
purposes. Although the additional window signs were not part of the
variance it was a very creative way to gain additional signage,
without adding wall signage. Now the newest façade has removed some
of the windows and D & W would like to essentially replace what
was in the corner window on 28th Street for the café.
Staff has listed within the Boards' packets the Findings of Fact.
Given the past variance, the fact that this is only an increase of
10-square feet from the past variance and the fact that the overall
wall signage is still below what it could be if it was one (1) sign,
Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow up to four (4) wall
signs totaling no more than 217-square feet.
Member Lewis asked if there is a sign off 28th Street that shows
Starbuck's and Planning Director Peterson noted the Starbuck's sign is
inside D & W's window facing 28th Street.
There were no other questions of Staff and Chairman Vaughn invited
the Applicant to add any comments.
Applicant Gary Gebhardt of Apex Sign in Flint said that his past
experience with Spartan Stores is to utilize minimal signage such as
instead of the word "Pharmacy" in their window they simply
have the "Rx" sign.
Mr. Gebhardt noted that the letters for the café are small and are
no larger than an 8 ½-inch by 11-inch sheet of paper. Though D &
W could utilize a 336-square foot sign, that large of a sign does not
fit their business philosophy or the Township's, therefore they are
requesting this small sign for the café.
The letters would be indirectly lit with gooseneck fixtures that
are currently on the exterior of the building.
Mr. Gebhardt received an email yesterday noting that the café's
name would more than likely change but the size of the lettering,
regardless of the name, would remain as being proposed at this
meeting. This sign is not meant to be intrusive and D & W is
noting that the sign will most likely be read from the parking lot
instead of 28th Street. The lettering will be a thin-stroke font and,
in his business, he is seeing more store-in-a-store type of signage.
The developer is requesting a minimal variance to the ordinance and
believes the request keeps within the intent of the sign ordinance and
would not be detrimental to any of the surrounding property owners.
Chairman Vaughn asked the Zoning Board if they had any questions of
the Applicant.
Member Lewis believes what Mr. Gebhardt is saying is that Spartan
Stores is trying to make a statement but they do not want to shout and
Mr. Gebhardt fully agreed with Member Lewis' comment.
Member Beahan asked if he new when the name change would take place
and Mr. Gebhardt said that marketing is currently working on it but is
not sure when the new name will be announced. Member Casey asked if
the name change only reflects the café and Mr. Gebhardt said that is
correct.
Member Lewis asked if there is a bank inside of the building and
Mr. Gebhardt is not sure. Member Casey believes there used to be a
bank inside but it is now gone.
Member Lewis asked if this extra 15-square foot sign is only for
the café and Mr. Gebhardt said yes it is, the signage will not be
used for a bank or anything else that may go inside D & W, it is
strictly for the café.
Member Lewis clarified that the location of the sign would be on
the side of the building and not on an awning that hangs down, etc.
Mr. Gebhardt said that is correct, the sign will be placed as
indicated in the Zoning Boards' packets. Chairman Vaughn noted the
wall the Applicant has selected for signage runs perpendicular to 28th
Street. Planning Director Peterson noted the location of the signage
on the parfait wall.
Member Beahan asked what type of lighting for the sign and Mr.
Gebhardt noted there would be gooseneck lighting that will be pointing
downward for the sign; the lighting is already on the building that
would be utilized.
Member Beahan motioned to open the Public Hearing supported by
Member Casey. Chairman Vaughn called the motion to question. All in
favor with none opposed, the Public Hearing was opened.
There were no public comments. Chairman Vaughn asked Staff if they
received any letters or phone calls regarding the project. Planning
Director Peterson said they did not.
Member Beahan motioned to close the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Casey. Chairman Vaughn called the motion to question. All in
favor with none opposed, the Public Hearing was closed.
Member Lewis motioned to approve the request for the existing
variance that would allow an additional 15-square feet, increasing the
total square footage to 217-square feet allowed for wall signs that
can be divided four (4) ways in as much that this total square footage
is allowed today, supported by Member Casey.
Chairman Vaughn called the motion to question. All in favor with
none opposed; motion carried.
ARTICLE 8. Any Other Business: Chairman Vaughn opened the meeting
for any other business.
Member Lewis noted that the temporary signs seem to be more
apparent within the Township again and asked if the Township wanted to
have the Fire Department clean them up. The Board agreed to have the
Fire Department sweep the Township for temporary signs.
ARTICLE 9. Adjournment.
Member Beahan supported by Member Lewis moved to adjourn. The motion
carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Crawley, Secretary
Lisa Hern, Recording Secretary
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
|
Site
Design/Development by
 |
|
