OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

November 16, 2004

Agenda

CHEESEBURGER IN PARADISE - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 5609 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-401-092)

ARBY'S - RTM GREAT LAKES - INTERPRETATION - WALL SIGN OR WINDOW SIGN

ARBY'S - RTM GREAT LAKES - DEVIATIONS - WALL SIGNS - 6660 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-185-021)

ARBY'S - RTM GREAT LAKES - DEVIATION - FREESTANDING SIGN - 6660 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-185-021)

ARBY'S - RTM GREAT LAKES - VARIANCE - LIGHTING - HEIGHT OF BUILDING MOUNTED LIGHTING - 6660 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-185-021)

A regular meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday, November 16, 2004, commencing at approximately 3:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Millard Loy, Chairperson
Grace Borgfjord
Duane McClung
James Turcott

MEMBER ABSENT: Dave Bushouse

Also present were Jodi Stefforia, Planning Director, Mary Lynn Bugge, Township Planner; James W. Porter, Township Attorney; and approximately three other interested persons.

CALL TO ORDER

The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

MINUTES

The Chairperson indicated the next item on the Agenda was the approval of the minutes of October 26, 2004. Attorney Porter said he had received a phone call from Patrick Lennon, representing Canterbury House Apartments. He said Mr. Lennon had suggested that reference to the sign on page 8 of the minutes should refer to a pole sign rather than a two-post sign. Ms. Stefforia noted that the Board had specifically granted a two-post sign, not a pole sign, and that it was to be similar to the design presented to the Board at the meeting at which the Board reduced the overall height from the ground. The Board members concurred, and the minutes remained unchanged.

Mr. Turcott made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Ms. Borgfjord. The Chairperson called for further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

CHEESEBURGER IN PARADISE - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 5609 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-401-092)

The Chairperson indicated the next item on the Agenda was review of the site plan for a new restaurant called Cheeseburger in Paradise to be located at 5609 West Main Street, being Parcel No. 3905-13-401-092. The Chairperson called for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Stefforia presented her report to the Zoning Board of Appeals dated November 16, 2004, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia explained to the Board that the applicant was requesting to demolish the Chi's Chi's restaurant and build a new restaurant, 8,500 square feet in size, with an outside seating area of 1,050 square feet. She said that the restaurant would use the existing parking and access arrangements, but additional landscaping around the property and new sidewalk along West Main Street would be provided to "refresh" the area.

Ms. Stefforia then proceeded to take the Board through a review of each criteria set forth in Section 82.800 of the Township Zoning Ordinance, being the site plan review criteria. Ms. Stefforia noted that access would remain unchanged, and the cross-access with adjacent properties would remain. She also noted that a sidewalk would be added which would require a permit from the Michigan Department of Transportation.

Ms. Stefforia said that parking currently exceeded Ordinance requirements, but recommended that the applicant "break-up" the line of parking spaces along the east property line and install an additional landscaping island.

Ms. Stefforia said that the proposed building satisfied all the setback requirements, and noted that outdoor storage was not permitted in the zoning district.

Ms. Stefforia said that they had inadequate information regarding lighting, and that the Planning Department would have to work with the applicant to be satisfied that all new exterior lighting would comply with the Township Ordinances.

She specifically made note of the fact that the dumpster enclosures would have to meet Township requirements. She also said that a sign permit would be required pursuant to Section 76 of the Ordinance.

Ms. Stefforia said the property is located in an existing commercial area, with the exception of the golf course to the south. With that in mind, she outlined the landscaping requirements as provided for by the Ordinance, including the need for a Type C green space along West Main Street and new landscaping to bring the site into compliance as much as possible with the Township Ordinance.

Ms. Stefforia concluded with a reference to the need for Fire Department review. In addition, she said the Township Engineer would have to review storm water needs for the property. She note that groundwater protection standards and an Environmental Permits Check and Hazardous Substance Reporting form had been completed and submitted by the applicant.

The Chairperson asked if there were any questions of Ms. Stefforia. Mr. Turcott asked if he understood correctly that there would be no drive-through. Ms. Stefforia said that was correct.

The Chairperson asked if the Planning Department would be reviewing the details of the dumpster areas. Ms. Stefforia said that the Planning Department would be reviewing those details internally. She noted that sometimes the dumpster areas are provided as part of the site plan, but often are not, and when they are not, they are reviewed internally by the Planning Department. The Chairperson suggested that the dumpster enclosures not be constructed of wood because they tend to deteriorate rapidly due to weather conditions and accidents caused by vehicles in the parking lot. He suggested that the gates be constructed of steel in order to maintain a better appearance for a longer period of time.

The Chairperson asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Aaron Catlin, of Fleis & Vandenbrink, introduced himself to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He thanks the Planning Staff for their assistance in reviewing the site plan. Mr. Catlin then presented a revised set of plans, which he said he believed incorporated all of the recommendations made by Ms. Stefforia and addressed the comments made in her report. He then took the Board through a quick review of the revised site plan, outlining the additional green space along the east line of the property. In addition, he reviewed the curb and the landscaping islands, which they proposed to alter to bring the property into greater compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. He said they were going to use shoebox cut-off lighting and would be working with Staff to make sure that all the lighting would be constructed in compliance with the Township Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Catlin then directed the Board to the proposed sidewalk to be added to the property, and he said he realized the sidewalk had to be done in compliance with MDOT approval.

The Chairperson asked what type of ground cover would be used along the east side of the property in the newly-added green space. Mr. Catlin said it would be mulch along with ground cover plants. He said they would not be using any stone.

The Chairperson asked what kind of dumpster enclosure they would be using. Mr. Catlin said they would be using a masonry enclosure that would match the building and that it would be made of sturdy materials in order to maintain a neat appearance.

The Chairperson asked the Board members if they had any questions. Hearing none, he asked the audience if there were any questions, and again, hearing none, closed the public portion of the meeting and called for Board deliberations.

The Chairperson said it appeared that the applicant had complied with the various requests made by Staff, and he thought they had done a fine job on their site plan. Mr. Turcott said he wanted to commend the applicant on addressing the issues raised by the Planning Department, and thought they had done a very nice job in revising their site plan to bring it into compliance as much as possible given existing conditions.

The Chairperson asked if there was any further discussion, and hearing none, said he would entertain a motion. Ms. Borgfjord made a motion to accept the site plan as submitted, subject to the following conditions:

(1) A permit for the sidewalk construction must be obtained from the Michigan Department of Transportation.

(2) The applicant is required to work with the Planning Department on a revised plan to address landscaping or curbing along the east property line.

(3) The site plan must reflect barrier-free parking spaces as required by law.

(4) Exterior lighting shall comply with Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance.

(5) All dumpsters must be enclosed and details of the proposed enclosure(s) must be provided for Township review and approval before a Building Permit may be issued.

(6) A Sign Permit, in compliance with Section 76, is necessary before any signs may be placed upon the subject property.

(7) A Type C green space shall be established along the West Main Street frontage between the existing parking and the north property line.

(8) Landscaping shall be installed consistent with the approved site plan before a Certificate of Occupancy may be issued unless a Performance Guarantee, pursuant to Section 82.950, is provided to the Township.

(9) Site plan approval is subject to Fire Department approval, pursuant to adopted codes.

(10) Site plan approval is subject to Township Engineer review and acceptance of site engineering as adequate.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Turcott. The Chairperson called for further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

ARBY'S - RTM GREAT LAKES - INTERPRETATION - WALL SIGN OR WINDOW SIGN

The Chairperson indicated that the next item on the Agenda was the application from RTM Great Lakes for an interpretation of the sign provisions of Section 76.170 B to determine whether a proposed sign should be considered a wall or window sign, and what constitutes the area of a window for purposes of determining permitted window sign area. The Chairperson asked to hear from the Township Planning Department. Ms. Bugge submitted her report dated November 16, 2004, to the Board, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge explained to the Board that RTM Great Lakes was proposing to construct a 3,512 square foot Arby's restaurant with indoor dining and a drive-through service. She said, under Section 30.407, a drive-through is a special exception use in the "C" Local Business District. She said that special use would be considered by the Planning Commission on November 18, 2004; however, there were several issues that the applicant wished to have addressed in the way of interpretation or deviation and/or variance requests before that meeting.

Ms. Bugge said that the Zoning Board of Appeals had two matters to address. The first is to interpret the sign provisions to determine what constitutes the area of a window for purposes of determining permitted window sign area. The second is to determine if a window sign can be considered a wall sign if it exceeds the permitted area of the window sign. Ms. Bugge proceeded to present the building design and layout information to the Board for its consideration.

Ms. Bugge present the Board with a letter from Pamela Larson of 405 North 8th Street, objecting to all of Arby's requests.

The Chairperson asked if there were any questions of Ms. Bugge. Mr. McClung asked how Ms. Bugge had reached the conclusion that the top portion of the glass wall was separate from the remainder of the glass when all they were separated by was the "Y" configuration. Ms. Bugge said she believed it was a structural element separating the glass portion on the top from the remainder of the window. She said it appeared to her that the wider metal pieces constituted a physical separation from the remaining windows below the "Y" configuration. She said that very question was what she was asking the Board to consider for interpretation purposes.

The Chairperson asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Craig Hondorp introduced himself and Mr. Paul Quinn of RTM Great Lakes to the Board. Mr. Hondorp said that all other municipalities where they operate have interpreted the glass configuration, as proposed for the north face of their building, to be a single window, constituting 213 square feet, which would put the sign within the 15% limitation permitted under the Zoning Ordinance for window signs.

Mr. Turcott asked if all of the glazing sections in the center of the building were, in fact, windows. Mr. Hondorp said they were.

The Chairperson asked if there were any questions from the public, and hearing none, closed the public portion of the meeting and called for Board deliberation. The Chairperson said he had come to the same conclusion that Mr. McClung had, that it appeared to him to be a single window separated only by the trim. The Chairperson pointed to the windows within the Township meeting hall and asked if they were each three windows or one window separated by the sections of the window sash. He said he viewed them each as one window, just as he would view the glassed area in the center of the proposed building as a single window. The Chairperson asked the Board to consider the consequences of treating the panes as a separate window, the applicant could put a window sign in each window, which would allow for the same total percentage of window signage, and the result would be the same as what the applicant is requesting.

Mr. McClung said he thought it would be better to treat it as a single window, since the glass panes were all in line with one another and separated simply by the sash material did not make it a separate window.

Ms. Borgfjord said that she saw the window sign more as an identification sign rather than a window sign, and she questioned whether or not the glassed area should be considered a whole window. Mr. Turcott said he agreed with her perception, and he thought the logo should be in compliance. Mr. Quinn pointed out that they would be getting into the overall signage area as part of the next issue, but he thought the Board should concentrate on whether or not this was, in fact, a single window and deal with the overall signage as part of their next matter. Ms. Bugge agreed. Mr. Turcott agreed and said that the issue was whether or not there was one window or 16 or 17 windows. Ms. Stefforia concurred and said she thought they should ignore the logo sign and first address the issue as to whether or not there was a single or multi windows present along the face of the structure.

Ms. Bugge asked if Ms. Borgfjord was saying that the particular window at issue was distinct from the remainder of the windows. Mr. McClung said it was distinct in that it was turned at a 45 degree angle, but it still was not separated from all the other windows. Ms. Borgfjord said it was separated by a heavier and thicker window casing. Ms. McClung then asked Ms. Borgfjord if she considered the side windows as one window or six windows. Ms. Borgfjord asked if all the glass was flat from top to bottom, i.e., along the same plane. Mr. Hondorp said that all the glass was on the same plane. She said she viewed that as one window.

Ms. Bugge asked for clarification as to what the Board believed created separate windows. Mr. McClung said it would require separation by brick or some other type of building material. Ms. Bugge then asked, to constitute a separate window, whether the windows would have to be separated by a structural element. Mr. McClung said he thought that is what it would require - something more than the window sash or a window mullions before it would be considered a separate window. Mr. Quinn said that, while there were structural supports incorporated within the window, they were not separated by a structural support and that the only reason for the wider trim along the "Y" configuration was simply for design purposes, but it did not constitute a structural element of the window area. Mr. Turcott asked if all the glass was actually together. Mr. Quinn said that all of the glass panels were nearly abutting but for the trim elements.

Ms. Bugge said she originally thought the heavier trim was part of a structural element separating the windows. The Chairperson said, from the statements made by the applicant, it did not appear that it was, and if it was just a decorative trim, he thought the windows should be treated as one large window area. Mr. Quinn said that the Chairperson's comments were correct; that while there was steel within the framework for the windows, the trim separating the windows was nothing more than cosmetic and did not constitute a structural element of the building.

Mr. Turcott said he thought the Board should take great care in differentiating between structural elements and decorative elements in deciding this issue. Mr. McClung agreed. Ms. Bugge asked if the Board was agreeing that a window separated only by a trim piece or a mullion is a single window. There was general consensus that was the interpretation the Board was moving toward.

Mr. Turcott asked how they would define this interpretation in reaching their conclusion. Mr. McClung suggested that the mullions should not constitute a separate division dividing panes of glass into a separate window. Mr. McClung made a motion to interpret the subject window as one window and that glass separated by mullions alone should be interpreted as a single window, and that glass only be considered a separate window if it was separated by dissimilar structural material. The motion was seconded by Ms. Borgfjord. The Chairperson called for further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Based on the interpretation of the Board, the subject logo was determined to constitute a window sign, constituting less than 15% of the service area of the window at issue.

Ms. Bugge asked that the Board consider the second item, to-wit: whether a window sign could be considered a wall sign if it exceeded the permitted area for a window sign. The Chairperson asked if they should decide this on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Bugge said she thought an interpretation would help the Board and the Planning Department for purposes of a future reference. Mr. Turcott said he thought it should be up to the applicant whether he wanted it to constitute a window sign or use a portion of it as their wall signage, if they so chose. Mr. Turcott made a motion that, if a window sign exceeds the allowable square footage permitted under the Zoning Ordinance, that it could be, at the applicant's request, considered a wall sign, and included in the number permitted and in the square footage calculations for permitted wall signage. The motion was seconded by Mr. McClung. The Chairperson asked if there was further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

ARBY'S - RTM GREAT LAKES - DEVIATIONS - WALL SIGNS - 6660 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-185-021)

The Chairperson said the next item for consideration was RTM Great Lakes' request for a deviation from the provisions of Section 76.170 B to allow five wall signs for the subject property located at 6660 West Main Street, being Parcel No. 3905-14-185-021, and to allow sign area on the south building wall to exceed the area permitted.

The Chairperson asked for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Bugge presented her reported dated November 16, 2004, to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge stated the request was only to allow an increase in sign area on the south side of the building; based on the previous interpretation, the number of wall signs requested were permitted.

Ms. Bugge took the Board through an analysis of Section 76.170 B, as well as the provisions of Section 76.500. She specifically noted that the subject site gradually slopes away from West Main toward Meijers, that the elevation transitions from approximately 959 feet at the West Main property line to approximately 943 feet abutting the parking lot. She said the elevation changes from 962 feet adjacent to the pavement on West Main to 959 feet at the property line, and that the first floor elevation was to be approximately 951 feet. Based upon the Board's previous interpretation, Ms. Bugge said the applicant was requesting a deviation to permit a sign area on the south elevation to exceed that permitted under the Ordinance. She said the south facade would be entitled to 32 square feet of signage, based upon one square foot of sign area per lineal foot of wall length. She said the applicant was seeking 28 square feet for each of the Arby signs, for a total of 56 square feet, which exceeded the sign area by approximately 24 square feet. Ms. Bugge then reviewed the standards for a sign deviation with the Board, pursuant to Section 76.500 of the Zoning Ordinance.

The Chairperson asked if there were any questions of Ms. Bugge. Hearing none, the Chairperson asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Hondorp explained to the Board that they felt a deviation from the square footage was warranted. He said they were most concerned about development on the outlots east and west of the proposed structure. He said, when those lots develop, it would likely have a negative impact upon their wall signage on the east and west sides of the building, and therefore, they believed greater wall signage on the side of the building facing West Main Street was warranted. He also noted that the total square footage of the signage allowed for the building would be approximately 260 square feet, and that there were only requesting 112 feet of overall signage. He also felt that the topography created a hardship that would warrant the grant of the deviation. Mr. Quinn noted that the Township's Ordinance overall was quite generous, and that they were not asking for a deviation from the total square footage allowed, but only for that portion of the structure facing the road right-of-way. Again, he said he thought this was warranted due to the topography and the likely development east and west of their proposed site.

The Chairperson asked if there were any questions of the applicant, and hearing none, asked if there were any questions from the public. Again hearing none, he called for Board deliberations.

Ms. Stefforia reminded the Board that, when they wrote the Ordinance allowing for sign deviations, it was to allow the Board to reach some compromise with the developer. She said, unlike a variance, she felt there was greater latitude for the Board to compromise and "make a deal" with the developer on sign issues.

The Chairperson said he thought it was important that the Board keep in mind what they had done elsewhere, and he wanted to see the Board stay as close to the permitted square footage allowed as possible. He said this applicant was not that far from the road, unlike many of the other applications for which the ZBA had not granted a deviation or variance.

Mr. McClung said he did not think the additional sign area on the south side would have that much of an impact, but he did want to see the Board hold the line for the most part, but he said he would be open to some option, if it were proposed by one of the Board members. Mr. McClung asked if there was an option of reducing the two proposed wall signs. Mr. Quinn said they could make it smaller, but given they were willing to commit to the limited signage on the east and west sides of the building and to no signage on the north side of the building, they hoped for larger signage on the south side of the structure.

Mr. Turcott said that they had discussed this issue before, and that with other applicants, the Board had pretty much held the line. He said he did not want to see extremely large signs brought into the community, and thought that the Board needed to stay as close to its Ordinance requirements as reasonably possible.

Mr. Quinn asked whether the Board felt that their lineal frontage was properly calculated. He suggested that the extensions out from the building facing the road right-of-way should be added into the calculation. He said, if that were considered then they would get 40 square feet of wall frontage. Ms. Bugge and Ms. Stefforia said that they typically did not include portions of the building that were set that far back from the face of the building.

The Chairperson said he might be willing to entertain two 20-foot signs versus two 16-foot signs. There was a general discussion among the Board members that, given the topography and location on M-43, a slight deviation from their wall sign provisions might be warranted.

Mr. McClung made a motion to allow two 20-square-foot signs on the front of the proposed building facing M-43, provided that there were no signs on the north face of the building and that the east and west wall signs remain at 28 square feet. Mr. Quinn asked, if the two 20-square-foot signs were not acceptable to his client, if they could put one 32-square-foot sign. Ms. Bugge indicated that would also be acceptable. The Chairperson asked if there was second to the motion; Ms. Borgfjord seconded the motion. The Chairperson called for further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

ARBY'S - RTM GREAT LAKES - DEVIATION - FREESTANDING SIGN - 6660 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-185-021)

The Chairperson said the next item up for consideration was the request from RTM Great Lakes for a deviation from the provisions of Section 76.170 B to allow a freestanding sign that exceeds the permitted height. The Chairperson called for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Bugge presented her report dated November 16, 2004, to the Board, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge explained to the Board that commercial establishments are permitted one pole sign with a maximum display area of 60 square feet and a maximum height of 20 square feet. She said the applicant was requesting a deviation to allow a 27.5 foot freestanding sign when a 20-foot sign is permitted. She defined the height of the sign as being the vertical distance measured from the highest point of the sign, including any decorative embellishments, to the grade of the adjacent street, or the existing surface grade beneath the sign, whichever ground level is lower (less.) Ms. Bugge explained that the applicant was requesting the deviation because of the elevation of West Main Street in relationship to where their sign would be located on their property.

Ms. Bugge then took the Board through the standards for approval of a sign deviation. The Chairperson asked if there were any questions of Ms. Bugge, and hearing none, asked to hear from the applicant.

Mr. Hondorp said all that they were asking was a level playing field. Mr. Quinn seconded Mr. Hondorp's remarks by saying they are simply asking for a sign that is 20 feet high at the road level. He said this would help nullify the difference in the grade between their sign and other signs on West Main Street.

Noting there were no longer any members of the public present, the Chairperson called for Board deliberations. Mr. McClung said he did not see a problem with what the applicant was requesting. He said he also did not think they would be setting an adverse precedent, in that, the request was due to the topography of the property.

Ms. Borgfjord asked, if the grade of the property was 7.5 feet above the street line, whether someone would still get a sign that is 20 feet in the air. Ms. Bugge indicated no, because the Ordinance is currently drafted to allow a sign to be no more than 20 feet from the surface grade below the sign, or the grade at the street whichever is lower. She said, in that respect, the signs are all to be adjusted and be site-specific, which would result in a certain amount of undulation along the street right-of-way.

Mr. Turcott said he thought it was a reasonable request. Mr. McClung agreed.

Mr. McClung made a motion to allow a deviation to allow the applicant's pole sign to have a height of 27.5 feet placed as indicated in the site plan or 20 feet at road grade, whichever is less. Mr. Turcott seconded the motion. The Chairperson asked if there was further discussion on the motion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

ARBY'S - RTM GREAT LAKES - VARIANCE - LIGHTING - HEIGHT OF BUILDING MOUNTED LIGHTING - 6660 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-185-021)

The Chairman indicated the next item on the Agenda was RTM Great Lakes' request to allow building-mounted lighting to exceed the height limitations provided for under Section 78.720 C of the Ordinance. The Chairman asked to hear from the Planning Department. Ms. Bugge presented her report regarding this matter dated November 16, 2004, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge explained to the Board that the applicant was proposing two bands of LED lighting on the building. One band mounted 12 feet above grade, and the other to be mounted 16.5 feet above grade. However, Ms. Bugge noted that Section 78.720 stated that building-mounted lighting is not to exceed 15 feet. Therefore, the upper light band would not be in compliance. Ms. Bugge said that the applicant is requesting a variance from this height limitation. She said the variance would be approximately 1.5 feet.

The Chairperson asked if there were any questions for Ms. Bugge. Hearing none, he asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Hondorp asked that the Board keep in mind that the highest light band would only be 5.5 feet above the street level. He said they thought their request was different since they were not lighting the roof or lighting a canopy of any structure, but were in fact simply providing an accent lighting. He said that there would not be any light shed on the surrounding brick, and the LED lighting was not nearly as bright as neon lighting.

The Chairperson raised an issue as to whether or not the proposed lighting would be as subdued as indicated by the applicant. Mr. Quinn said that, unlike neon lighting, the LED lighting would be contained within a plastic sheath so as to make it much more subdued than neon lighting. The Chairperson asked for confirmation that it was the casing in which the lighting was held that would make it more subdued. Mr. Quinn confirmed that and said it is the Lexon plastic in which it is contained that reduces the lighting to a very low illumination.

Ms. Bugge asked if the light strips were pulsating or flashing. Mr. Quinn indicated that they were not. He said they were on all the time, and that you would not even notice them until after dark.

The Chairperson, again noting that there was no one in the audience, called for Board deliberations. He began by saying that, given the topography, he did not believe there would be a negative impact on surrounding properties. Mr. McClung said he did not really have any comments, but did not think this was going to be a problem. Ms. Borgfjord said she was somewhat worried about how much illumination would be coming off the proposed light strips. The Chairperson said, in addition to the topography, he thought the Board should take into account that the Meijers gas station runs 24 hours, seven days a week, and is just down the street, and that this would not likely have any significant impact on light pollution. He said, even if they were bright, they would only be slightly above road grade in the area.

Mr. Turcott said he was also concerned about how brilliant the proposed light strips could be. He asked whether or not the Planning Department would review the property for light limitations or whether the applicant had a photometric plan. Ms. Bugge indicated that there was a photometric plan; however, the applicant noted that it did not take into account the LED lighting. Mr. Hondorp said the light emanating from these light strips would likely not even be detectable by a light meter. He said it would not wash the wall in light. Mr. Quinn again noted that it would be a very low level light that simply created a glow to the subject property.

Mr. McClung made a motion to allow the lighting variance of 1.5 feet for the top light strip due to the topography of the property, the surrounding light in the area, and the type of lighting proposed, which would be less bright than neon lighting. The Chairperson asked if there was a second to the motion. Mr. Turcott seconded the motion. The Chairperson asked for further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:55 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

By:
Millard Loy, Chairperson

By:
Grace Borgfjord

By:
Duane McClung

By:
James Turcott

Minutes Prepared:
November 22, 2004
Minutes Approved:
, 2004