Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

MINUTES

Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals

Tuesday, February 14, 2006
7:00 p.m.

ARTICLE 1. Chairman Casey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Crawley, Vaughn, Alternate Neal
Members Absent: Lewis (excused) and 2nd Alternate Richards (excused)
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Admin. Assistant Hern and members from the public.

ARTICLE 2. Chairman Casey requested a motion for approval of the February 14, 2006 Agenda. Member Beahan motioned for approval of the February 14, 2006 Agenda, supported by Member Crawley. All were in favor, none opposed. The motion carried.

ARTICLE 3. Chairman Casey requested a motion for approval of the January 10, 2006 Meeting Minutes. Member Beahan motioned for approval. Member Vaughn supported the motion. All in favor, with none opposed, January 10, 2006 Minutes approved.

ARTICLE 4. Case #06-2786 Cascade Roadhouse
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant is seeking a variance that would allow their 9 foot tall ground sign along Cascade Road to be placed five (5) feet off from the property line.

Planning Director Peterson noted the applicant is requesting a variance for signage placed five (5) feet off the property line. He referred to a table within Staff's report, used for B1 Village Business District, and table dictates the size, setback and height are dependant on one another. The table for taller and bigger sigs the greater distance you move away from the property line. He noted in this particular request, the sign is five (5) feet off from the property line and the sign is eighteen (18) square feet itself. Using the table and the five (5) foot setback, this would limit the sign to being four (4) feet high. Planning Director Peterson further explained how the Township measures a sign from the top of the sign to the average grade. The sign in question is actually built on top of a waterfall rock feature; the sign itself is approximately three (3) feet tall but when you add the rock feature it is really measured as nine (9) feet in height.

There is currently no permit for the sign, since Staff noticed it over this past summer and notified the owner of the Township's Sign Ordinance. The owner did attempt to change the sign to comply with the code but found no other alternative than to seek a variance. for the current sign. Planning Director Peterson noted the Township only allows for one (1) wall sign, and the Applicant could have a wall sign with or without the ground sign. Township allows for one (1) wall sign and Applicant can decide which side to put wall sign on.

Before the ZBA reaches a decision regarding the current sign, they need to consider the Findings of Fact.

The building has a very small setback from the road and is considered "grandfathered" , with a greater building setback there would be more room for the sign enabling the sign to be taller. Planning Director Peterson noted the sign could remain in its current location but would have to be lowered, removing the waterfall feature. The Applicant has not just put the sign on top of a berm but has used a very attractive waterfall feature to enhance the front of the building.

If a variance is awarded, the ZBA could consider limiting the sign to the current one to avoid one being placed at the maximum sign area allowed. Planning Director Peterson further noted the sign could be viewed as detrimental since other new signs have had to comply with the current regulations.

The ZBA may also want to consider, if granted, limiting the sign as discussed and possibly limit wall signage as well. Public comments should also be considered prior to making a decision on the matter.

Staff would support the idea of a variance for the sign considering:

They have removed the wall sign on Cascade Road.
The sign is still under the allowed sign area.
The applicant has developed an attractive waterfall feature that is sits on as opposed to a berm or tall posts.

Given that, Staff would recommend the variance be granted with the following conditions:
1. They not be permitted to have a wall sign.
2. The sign be limited to the current eighteen (18) square feet (106" x 25").
3. The sign itself be limited to three (3) feet high and that it remain on the waterfall rock feature. If the waterfall rock feature is removed, the sign must come down as well.

Planning Director Peterson also noted that Staff has not received any phone calls or letters concerning the matter. No public comments have been received.

Member Crawley asked if any public comments were received prior to Staff's knowledge of the sign. Planning Director Peterson said that staff noticed the sign and that no complaint was received.

Member Vaughn asked if a nine (9) foot tall sign was allowed within the Village District and Planning Director Peterson noted that it is not, according to the table.

Applicant, Bill Linkfield noted he changed the sign to draw more attention to the establishment; many people stop in the Citgo Gas Station and ask where it is located. He also added the landscaping to signify the restaurant is there and draw attention.

Applicant Linkfield noted he is available for the Board's questions and comments.

Member Vaughn asked how long the new sign has been installed and Applicant Linkfield noted for two (2) years.

Member Beahan motioned to open Public Hearing, supported by Member Crawley. All in favor with none opposed the Public Hearing opened.

Being there were no public comments, Member Beahan motioned to close Public Hearing, supported by Member Crawley. All in favor with none opposed, Public Hearing closed.

Member Crawley noted the case is pretty straightforward and the signage is very pleasing and he never noticed it. He supports the variance request with the conditions listed by Staff.

Member Vaughn questioned if the Applicant approached the ZBA prior to installation, would the ZBA have given approval?

Member Crawley noted one could not say for sure if the ZBA would have or would not have approved the variance and should base their decision on the setback and how the building has been grandfathered in.

Member Vaughn questioned if the ZBA is setting a precedent if someone wanted to put up a sign for a while before anyone notices it and approves it.

Member Crawley is basing his comments on the fact that the setback is where it is and the way they constructed it. Member Vaughn's comment has merit but not sure, if based on that comment itself, if the ZBA could ever come to a conclusion if they would have approved prior to installation.

Member Beahan noted that if the Applicant had approached the ZBA for a permit prior to construction, there is a good chance they would have received approval since they are removing wall sign, reducing the size of the sign that was on the wall itself and have a means for the sign to be taken down if they do remove the waterfall rock feature. He realizes this is putting the cart before the horse in this case but he does not feel too concerned about granting this variance, himself.

First Alternate Neal stated he has no opposition to the sign; the Applicant has exercised good taste in its design and is in favor of granting the variance with the conditions set forth by Staff and believes the variance should be approved.

Chairman Casey noted if the ZBA were faced with a similar situation, the ZBA would consider all of these ingredients and debated the request for a variance. Since this is already done, the ZBA is now structuring the limitations for the existing sign.

Member Crawley also noted he believes the sign is within reason and supports the conditions within the Findings of Fact.

Member Vaughn motioned for approval of the variance that would allow the Applicant's ground sign along Cascade Road be placed five (5) feet off from the property line with the following conditions:
1. Applicant is not permitted to have a wall sign.
2. The sign be limited to the current eighteen (18) square feet (106" x 25").
3. The sign itself to be limited to three (3) feet high and that it remain on the waterfall rock feature. If the waterfall rock feature is removed the sign must come down as well.
Member Crawley supported the motion and the conditions listed. All in favor with none opposed, motion carried.

ARTICLE 5. Any Other Business
Planning Director Peterson noted that Staff does not have any additional business.

Member Beahan asked if Staff has received an application for a permit for the Amoco Station, Planning Director Peterson said yes.

ARTICLE 6. Member Beahan supported by Alternate Neal moved to adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

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

Site Design/Development by