Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting Minutes - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 City Commission Chambers - City Hall 1. Call to Order & Roll Call Chairman Darbee called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: William Darbee, Anthony Dier, Christopher Greenleaf, Jan Rise and Julie Ulman. Others present: Terry Moultane, Neighborhood Services Manager; City Commission Liaison Larry Elliott 2. Approval April Minutes Mr. Moultane stated minutes for the April 14 meeting would be available at the June ZBA meeting. 3. Public Comments None 3. Old Business Case Z15-03 - 199 Uptown Drive, Shaheen Development (on behalf of Real Seafood Company™) Mr. Darbee reminded the ZBA that this case was tabled during the April meeting to allow the appellant to present additional evidence of need for a variance from the zoning regulation limiting the surface area of roof signs to 50 square feet. Nicholas Seehafer of Shaheen Development provided the following information by way of a Microsoft™ PowerPoint™ presentation:  A master plan of the Uptown property illustrating the location of existing and planned buildings and uses.  Real Seafood Company™ is a destination restaurant whose patrons will travel the I-75/US 10 corridors to M-25 across Veterans Bridge to dine there. The restaurant needs a sign of sufficient visibility and size to effectively advertise its location to motorists unfamiliar with Bay City. The sign will also be easily identified by boaters travelling to the restaurant from Saginaw Bay.  The restaurant’s three wall signs have limited visibility from East Main Street and Uptown Drive. The building is nestled behind a four-story Courtyard by Marriott™ hotel and other buildings. The restaurant must be able to effectively identify and advertise its location to the travelling public. 1   Real Seafood Company™ Graphic Standards call for narrow/tall typeface and tight type tracking. This causes individual letters to run together when grouped into a unified sign graphic.  Industry standards for letter visibility suggest 36 inch high letters have a maximum readable distance of 1,500 feet. The sign in question measures 36 inches by 420 inches, or 105 square feet. The building structure available to support a roof sign is 420 inches wide.  A 24 inch by 292 inch, or 50 square foot sign, would have a maximum readable distance of 1,000 feet.  The 36 inch letter height is the average of the distance between the restaurant, Veterans Bridge and the Kantzler Arboretum. Letters of this size are legible for eight seconds at a speed of 30 miles per hour. The letters are consistent with Real Seafood Company’s design standards for sign graphics. Photos illustrating the visibility of the sign from Kantzler Arboretum and Veterans Bridge were presented. The sign is legible from the arboretum, though marginally legible from the bridge. Mr. Darbee asked whether ZBA members had questions for Mr. Seehafer. There were none. Mr. Darbee asked for discussion. Mr. Greenleaf commented that the memo from Neighborhood Services Department staff dated May 5, 2015 regarding past ZBA decisions granting variances for signs substantially larger than permitted by zoning regulations addressed two wall signs and one roof sign. He stated he did not believe those cases were similar to the present case because he believes the need for a variance in the present case is created by the appellant and granting a variance would open the door for other large signs on the Uptown property. Mr. Darbee stated the sign in question is visible from two locations and must be large enough to identify the restaurant from those locations on the west side of the river from which it is visible. He stated a sign complying with sign regulations would not legible. He stated the ZBA decides whether variances are warranted based on the conditions and circumstances of individual properties, not speculation as to how other property owners may wish to improve property at an unknown future date. Mrs. Rise stated she agreed with Mr. Darbee in that the ZBA considered requests for variances in light of the conditions and circumstances of individual properties. She stated the sign must be large enough to be visible to persons viewing it, that she had visited the property and the believed the appellant has satisfied the standards for dimensional variances. Mr. Darbee asked for further discussion. There was none. Motion Mrs. Rise moved that the ZBA grant the variance to the appellant for the following reasons: Strict compliance with applicable zoning regulations is unnecessarily burdensome because of the location of the restaurant property, the direction the sign faces, and the location and size of other buildings on the Uptown property. 2 Granting a variances as it is requested is necessary to allow the restaurant to advertise the information the sign was designed to convey. The need for the variance is due to the unique physical characteristics of the property. The property is oddly shaped, the building is constructed in an offset direction, it is difficult to see the sign from the property, and will be visible from the bridge. The need for a variance is not self-created because of the location of the building, the location and size of surrounding buildings and the fact that the building faces the river on three sides. Mr. Dier seconded. Vote Mr. Darbee - yes; Mr. Dier - yes; Mr. Greenleaf - no; Mrs. Rise - yes; Ms. Ulman - yes. Four yes; one no. Motion adopted - variance granted. 4. Adjourn Meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m. Prepared by Scott McKillop, Staff Liaison, Neighborhood Services Department 3