January 28, 2015 - City of Birmingham

REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD
WEDNESDAY – JANUARY 28, 2015
7:30 PM
CITY COMMISSION ROOM
151 MARTIN STREET, BIRMINGHAM
A.
B.
C.
D.
Roll Call
Review and Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting of January 14, 2015
Chairpersons’ Comments
Review of the Agenda
E. Special Land Use Permit
1. 2483 W. Maple – Dearborn Financial Credit Union – New construction
of one story drive-through bank building.
F. Final Site Plan Review
1. 2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln – The West District Live/Work Apartments –
Construction of a new four story mixed use building with live/work units
and residential loft units.
G. Preliminary Site Plan Review
1. 2483 W. Maple – Dearborn Financial Credit Union – New construction
of one story drive-through bank building.
H. Study Session Items
Rules of Procedure for Study Sessions: Site Plan and Design Review, Special Land Use Permit Review and other
review decisions will not be made during study sessions; Each person (member of the public) will be allowed to
speak at the end of the study session; Each person will be allowed to speak only once; The length of time for each
person to speak will be decided by the Chairman at the beginning of the meeting; Board members may seek
information from the public at any time during the meeting.
1. Garage Front Houses
I. Meeting Open to the Public for items not on the Agenda
J. Miscellaneous Business and Communications:
a. Communications
b. Administrative Approval Correspondence
c. Draft Agenda for the next Regular Planning Board Meeting (February 11,
2015)
d. Other Business
Notice: Due to Building Security, public entrance during non-business hours is through the Police Department—Pierce
St. Entrance only. Individuals with disabilities requiring assistance to enter the building should request aid via the intercom system
at the parking lot entrance gate on Henrietta St.
Persons with disabilities that may require assistance for effective participation in this public meeting should contact the City Clerk’s
Office at the number (248) 530-1880, or (248) 644-5115 (for the hearing impaired) at least one day before the meeting to request
help in mobility, visual, hearing, or other assistance.
Las personas con incapacidad que requieren algún tipo de ayuda para la participación en esta sesión pública deben ponerse en
contacto con la oficina del escribano de la ciudad en el número (248) 530-1800 o al (248) 644-5115 (para las personas con
incapacidad auditiva) por lo menos un dia antes de la reunión para solicitar ayuda a la movilidad, visual, auditiva, o de otras
asistencias. (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
K. Planning Division Action Items
a. Staff Report on Previous Requests
b. Additional Items from tonight's meeting
L. Adjournment
PAGE 2 OF 2
AGENDA
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
PLANNING BOARD ACTION ITEMS
OF WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2015
Item
Page
SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT ("SLUP")
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW
1755 and 1775 E. Melton (postponed from November 19, 2014)
Eton Academy
Construction of a one-story addition to connect the school and former
church building
2
Motion by Mr. DeWeese
Seconded by Mr. Williams to recommend approval of the Preliminary and
Final Site Plan Review and SLUP Amendment for 1755 and 1775 Melton,
Eton Academy, to the City Commission.
3
Motion carried, 7-0.
3
SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT ("SLUP")
FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW
563 and 575 S. Eton
Griffin Claw Brewery
Request for approval of new construction of a whiskey distillery building
and a new entrance to the existing restaurant
3
Motion by Mr. DeWeese
Seconded by Mr. Koseck to recommend approval to the City Commission
of the Final Site Plan and SLUP Amendment for 563 and 575 S. Eton,
subject to the following condition:
1) The applicant complies with the comments/suggestions made by the
various departments and addresses the width of the parking lot access in
front of the brew house, subject to administrative approval.
6
Motion carried, 6-1.
6
FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW
245, 325 and 375 S. Eton
District Lofts, Building B
Construction of a new four-story, mixed-use building to include
commercial space and residential loft units
6
1
Birmingham Planning Board Proceedings
January 14, 2015
Item
Page
Motion by Ms. Whipple-Boyce
Seconded by Mr. Share to approve the Final Site Plan and Design Review
for 375 S. Eton subject to the following conditions:
1) Reduce the height of the building or obtain a variance from the BZA to
allow the mechanical tower and other equipment to exceed 50 ft. in
height;
2) Remove all uses above 40 ft. in height (deck, exercise room and
restroom) or obtain a variance from the BZA;
3) Provide specification sheets for the proposed rooftop mechanical
equipment and identify the proposed roofing material;
4) Add one street tree along Villa and provide street lights every 40 ft. on
S. Eton and every 80 ft. on Villa all along the north side, adjacent to
Buildings A and B, with all locations to be administratively approved; and
6) Add benches, trash receptacles and bike racks, with locations to be
administratively approved.
8
Motion carried, 7-0.
8
2
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2015
City Commission Room
151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan
Minutes of the regular meeting of the City of Birmingham Planning Board held on
January 14, 2015. Chairman Scott Clein convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Present:
Chairman Scott Clein; Board Members Carroll DeWeese, Bert Koseck,
Gillian Lazar, Janelle Whipple-Boyce, Bryan Williams; Alternate Board
Member Daniel Share; Student Representative Shelby Wilson (left at 9:15
p.m.)
Absent:
Board Member Robin Boyle; Alternate Board Member Stuart Jeffares;
Student Representative Jack Moore
Administration:
Matthew Baka, Senior Planner
Jana Ecker, Planning Director
Carole Salutes, Recording Secretary
Chairman Clein introduced and welcomed the new alternate member, Daniel Share.
01-01-15
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING
HELD DECEMBER 10, 2014
Chairman Clein:
Correct spelling of his name on the last page.
Motion by Mr. Williams
Seconded by Mr. DeWeese to approve the Minutes of the regular Planning Board
meeting on December 10, 2014 as corrected.
Motion carried, 7-0.
VOICE VOTE
Yeas: Williams, DeWeese, Clein, Koseck, Lazar, Share, Whipple-Boyce
Nays: None
Absent: Boyle
1
01-02-15
CHAIRPERSON’S COMMENTS
The study session for Garage Front Houses has been removed from this evening's
agenda.
Mr. DeWeese recommended that in a combined meeting, study sessions should always
be toward the end of the agenda.
01-03-15
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (no changes other than above)
01-04-15
STUDY SESSION
Garage Front Houses (postponed to February 11)
01-05-15
SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT ("SLUP")
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW
1755 and 1775 E. Melton (postponed from November 19, 2014)
Eton Academy
Construction of a one-story addition to connect the school and former church
building
Mr. Baka advised that the former St. Columban Church is located immediately south of
the Eton Academy at 1775 Melton. Both properties are currently zoned R-2 (Single
Family Residential). Eton Academy operates under a SLUP at their location, as did the
former St. Columban Church.
On November 11, 2013, Eton Academy was approved for a SLUP Amendment to
purchase the existing St. Columban Church building, parking lot and property at 1775
Melton. At this time, the applicant is seeking approval to convert the existing church for
office and tutoring space.
On November 19, 2014, the Planning Board postponed the application to January 14,
2015 to allow the applicant time to provide additional information. The board agreed to
review the Preliminary and Final Site Plans at that time.
As this is a SLUP, the Planning Board will review the plans and make a
recommendation to the City Commission. The City Commission’s approval of the SLUP
application or amendment shall constitute approval of the site plan and design.
Design Review
The plans show the proposal to establish connections between the existing school
building and church through a concrete walkway and decorative wood screenwall at the
2
front of the buildings and a newly constructed learning center, lobby and hallway system
connecting the rear of the church building and the existing Eton Academy. Also, the
existing gymnasium is proposed to be newly clad in cedar siding.
Chairman Clein received confirmation that the addition is 2,090 sq. ft.
Mr. Robert Huer with Lord-Aeck-Sargent Architecture explained the link between the
two buildings is not a covered walkway because they would have to move a transformer
to a different location. The fence protects the interior area that they envision as a play
area for the lower school. Also, it masks what is currently the main entry. Holes in the
fence allow people to peak through. They have taken the paving away from the front of
the building and it will all be landscaped. Mr. Huer went on to describe the circulation
plan. They have significantly increased the queuing available in the parking lot as
opposed to out on Melton.
Motion by Mr. DeWeese
Seconded by Mr. Williams to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Review and SLUP Amendment for 1755 and 1775 Melton, Eton Academy,
to the City Commission.
Mr. Koseck commented the applicant has done a lot to improve the site and he thinks
they have done it beautifully. Chairman Clein appreciates their efforts in highlighting the
transportation and circulation.
There were no final public comments on the motion at 7:48 p.m.
Motion carried, 7-0.
VOICE VOTE
Yeas: DeWeese, Williams, Clein, Koseck, Lazar, Share, Whipple-Boyce
Nays: None
Absent: Boyle
01-06-15
SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT ("SLUP")
FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW
563 and 575 S. Eton
Griffin Claw Brewery
Request for approval of new construction of a whiskey distillery building and a
new entrance to the existing restaurant
Mr. Baka recalled the subject property is located at 563 & 575 S. Eton. The applicant
was approved for a SLUP on December 12, 2011 for the operation of a permitted
commercial use over 6,000 sq. ft. The current use consists of a 6,344 sq. ft. brewery,
3,494 sq. ft. restaurant, 2,170 sq. ft. walk in cooler, outdoor seating, and associated
parking lot. The total area of the lot is 1.52 acres. At this time, the applicant is proposing
to construct a new 4,525 sq. ft. accessory structure at the rear of the property for barrel
aging and additional storage, to expand the existing beer garden, to add a new shipping
3
container entrance, and add a new structural canopy at the service doors. The proposal
will require the alteration of the existing parking layout to accommodate the changes,
and that will involve the elimination of 18 parking spaces. With that, the site will still
have six spaces over the requirement.
As this is a SLUP, the Planning Board will review the plans and make a
recommendation to the City Commission. The City Commission’s approval of the
Special Land Use Permit application or amendment shall constitute approval of the site
plan and design.
Design Review
The building is designed with an industrial look to fit in with the numerous industrial
buildings in the MX District. The pedestrian connections proposed will link this site with
neighborhoods to the east and west of the site.
The applicant is proposing to expand the existing outdoor/biergarten area by 519 sq. ft.
The additional space will be used to provide four wooden beer hall style tables and two
new bistro tables with two chairs made of painted wood and metal.
Based on the amount of street frontage the brewery has facing S. Eton the site is
permitted 175 sq. ft. of signage. The applicant was previously approved to have 119.4
sq. of signage. With the addition of the new sign the total proposed signage for the site
is 131.3 sq. ft. Accordingly, the signage for Griffin Claw meets the Ordinance
requirements.
Mr. Roman Bonislawski, Ron and Roman Architects, said part of the experience of
visiting Griffin Claw is truly being part of the entire brewing and distillation process. Mr.
Dan Rogers, the brewmaster, is bringing his expertise now to the distillation of different
spirits. The proposal is an important component of the project because It only makes
sense to have this simplistic building to house approximately three hundred barrels to
be aged.
The only controversial issue is their proposed use of seven very simple black aluminum
and clear glass up/down lights along the north and west facade of the accessory
building that are in the same style as the cylinder up and down lights that are on the
front of the building. The fixtures do not meet the Zoning Ordinance requirement for
cut-off lights.
He described the intensity of usage at the barrel house as very minimal. The barrels go
in and they age for years.
Mr. Williams commented that at 7 p.m. this evening every parking space was full and it
is winter. Eighteen spaces will now be moved into the neighborhood.
Chairman Clein said that considering the number of vehicles in the parking lot he is
bothered by the 16 ft. 7 in. wide drive aisle. He received confirmation that the height of
the canopy works at 17 ft.
The chairman called for comments from the public at 8:45 p.m.
4
Mr. Brian Renner, 1971 Bowers, expressed his concern about the removal of 18 parking
spaces and the effect it will have on his street and on Eton. He encouraged the board
to think about opportunities to improve parking availability for the patrons and not to
affect the side streets.
Mr. Ron Glazer who lives on Webster said he too has a huge problem with losing 18
parking spots. The proposal is a large addition to an already large built-out area of
property and he doesn't like it. The cement block building material doesn't seem to him
to be very high quality. If this is allowed, the parking really needs to be adjusted.
Mr. Brian Renner spoke again to ask what if there is an emergency situation and fire
trucks cannot get through because there are cars parked on both sides of Eton. He
requested the board to think about that.
Ms. Ecker advised when residential streets get overrun with parking from other uses
there is a Residential Parking Permit Program that allows neighbors to approach the
Multi-Modal Transportation Board to consider making a street Residential Permit
parking only.
Ms. Whipple-Boyce sympathized with the neighborhood concerns. She thought parking
on Eton should be encouraged. If snow is blocking the painted curbs, perhaps some
"No Parking Here to Corner" signs need to be installed. Also, there may be some
opportunities for shared parking with Lego Garage. Lastly, perhaps a valet
arrangement could be explored for parking in the garage or on Palmer.
Mr. Scott LePage, the business owner, said they currently have shared parking with
Lego Garage. He could have the brewery staff park at Big Rock in the summer months.
He offered to pay for striping parallel spots along Palmer.
Mr. Williams observed that crossing Eton to get to the brewery is a problem because
people can't see around the cars on both sides and drivers can't see the people coming
across. He thinks the City should put stop signs along Eton to enable pedestrians and
bicyclists to cross the street safely.
Mr. Koseck said he has been there a number of times and always found a parking
space. This proposal shows him that an ordinary, utilitarian type building can be done
and be beautifully understated. He thinks the concrete block is totally complimentary
and appropriate and he likes the collection of all the accessory buildings - like going to a
winery.
Chairman Clein said the more that people park on Eton, the slower traffic will go. His
advice to the neighbors was to definitely look into permit parking. Personally, he was
supportive of the project.
Motion by Mr. DeWeese
Seconded by Mr. Koseck to recommend approval to the City Commission of the
Final Site Plan and SLUP Amendment for 563 and 575 S. Eton, subject to the
following condition:
5
1) The applicant complies with the comments/suggestions made by the various
departments and addresses the width of the parking lot access in front of the
brew house, subject to administrative approval.
There were no final comments from the public at 9:35 p.m.
Motion carried, 6-1.
VOICE VOTE
Yeas: DeWeese, Koseck, Clein, Lazar, Share, Whipple-Boyce
Nays: Williams
Absent: Boyle
01-07-15
FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW
245, 325 and 375 S. Eton
District Lofts, Building B
Construction of a new four-story, mixed-use building to include commercial
space and residential loft units
Ms. Ecker explained the subject site, 375 S. Eton, is part of a larger site including the
existing Big Rock Chop House, Big Rock Chop House parking deck, the Reserve
banquet facility, and the District Lofts - Villa Street Building (Building A), and has a total
land area of 3.54 acres. It is located on the southeast corner of S. Eton and Maple Rd.,
and extends down to Villa St. to the south. A Special Land Use Permit ("SLUP") was
granted for the Reserve on September 22, 2003 as it exceeds 6,000 sq. ft. in size, and
has hours of operation past 11 p.m. The applicant was also required to prepare a
Community Impact Study ("CIS") in accordance with section 7.27(E) of the Zoning
Ordinance at the time that the entire site was originally approved (when Building A was
to be constructed), and the CIS was accepted by the Planning Board on January 25,
2006. As the Big Rock Chop House is also listed in the City’s inventory of historic
properties, the entire site was also previously reviewed and approved by the Historic
District and Design Review Committee (“HDDRC”).
The applicant is proposing to construct the final phase of the entire development which
was originally approved on August 6, 2006. This final phase includes the proposed
construction of a four-story, mixed-use building containing 18 residential loft units, two
live/work ground floor units and two commercial spaces on the first floor (Building B).
Building B is not located in a Historic District. All of the underground parking will be
under the footprint of the new loft building and accessed from the existing loft building.
The units range in size from 924 sq. ft. to 2,800 sq. ft.
The applicant meets the majority of the bulk, height, area and placement requirements
for the MX Zoning District. However, the applicant will be required to reduce the
height of the building or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals to
allow the mechanical tower and other equipment to exceed 50 ft. in height. The
applicant is proposing 58 ft. including the mechanical and four stories. They have
advised that they wish to seek a variance from the BZA to allow the stair and elevator
6
tower to provide access to the rooftop, and to seek a variance to allow a rooftop
deck with a pergola and an enclosed exercise room and a restroom if the
Planning Board is supportive of this use.
Design Review
The proposed building design matches the contemporary style of the existing District
Lofts building next door, while using some traditional style materials to blend in with the
historic Big Rock Restaurant and The Reserve to create a building design that is
harmonious with both the Mixed-Use District on the east side of Eton and the SingleFamily Residential District on the west side of Eton. Overall, the proposed design of
Building A is compatible with the vision for the MX District contained in the Eton Road
Corridor Plan. All of the materials match what is on the existing loft building.
Mr. Victor Saroki, the architect for this development, was present along with Mr. Scott
LePage, the developer; and Mr. John Kelly, the general contractor. The new building is
exactly the same as originally proposed, except for the roof terrace. The original
building has been very successful and there is a waiting list to get in. This building has
some nice retail spaces that front right on Eton. The materials and aesthetic details are
meant to resemble updated warehouses. The project meets all parking requirements
and an additional 34 underground spaces are proposed for the new building. They are
happy to work with staff to identify street furniture along Eton and the appropriate
spaces for lighting along both Eton and Villa.
They see the roof terrace as a nice element to introduce into this project. Serviceability
for the mechanical equipment is a practical consideration for allowing the stairs and
elevator to go to the roof. In the MX District the allowable building height is 45 ft. and
only 5 ft. more is permitted for mechanical. All the other zoning districts in town permit
10 ft. for mechanical. So with only 5 ft. permitted, the only way to get to the roof is to
climb up a ladder and through a hatch. In summary, the rooftop terrace is a small
element that is practical for service and it is good for the residents. Mr. Saroki thinks
that use of the roofs should be encouraged, but it cannot be done with only 5 ft. allowed
above the building height.
Ms. Whipple-Boyce thought the rooftop area is somewhat like a fifth story. She
suggested they could achieve what they want by taking half of an end unit and turning it
into a terrace. Mr. Saroki replied if they are not successful at the BZA, the terrace won't
happen.
Mr. Koseck likes the aesthetic of the building. He was surprised at the 5 ft. limit on
rooftop screening, the same with stairs and an elevator. Mr. Saroki showed the
circulation through the site and explained how people can go in and out comfortably.
Mr. DeWeese said he finds it very hard to support the uses, given the way the
ordinance is written; but again, it is not clear why it is that way because the 5 ft. height
allowance for screening is not practical.
In response to Chairman Clein, Mr. Saroki stated there is no intention to add an
enclosure to allow for all season use. This is truly a sun deck.
7
The Chairman called for comments from members of the public at 9:55 p.m.
Mr. J. Colsman, 521 Lewis, asked where all the cars will park. Ms. Ecker verified that
the applicant complies with the parking requirement. Mr. Saroki said they have 397
spaces on-site, which is an excess of 60 spaces, not including street parking. Mr.
Williams noted that people always want to park on the streets.
Motion by Ms. Whipple-Boyce
Seconded by Mr. Share to approve the Final Site Plan and Design Review for 375
S. Eton subject to the following conditions:
1) Reduce the height of the building or obtain a variance from the BZA to allow
the mechanical tower and other equipment to exceed 50 ft. in height;
2) Remove all uses above 40 ft. in height (deck, exercise room and restroom)
or obtain a variance from the BZA;
3) Provide specification sheets for the proposed rooftop mechanical equipment
and identify the proposed roofing material;
4) Add one street tree along Villa and provide street lights every 40 ft. on S.
Eton and every 80 ft. on Villa all along the north side, adjacent to Buildings A
and B, with all locations to be administratively approved; and
6) Add benches, trash receptacles and bike racks, with locations to be
administratively approved.
There were no comments from the audience on the motion at 10:03 p.m.
Motion carried, 7-0.
VOICE VOTE
Yeas: Whipple-Boyce, Share, Clein, DeWeese, Koseck, Lazar, Williams
Nays: None
Absent: Boyle
01-08-15
MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (no
discussion)
01-09-15
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a.
Communications
 2200 Holland, Mercedes-Benz was approved for their variance at the Board of
Zoning Appeals;
 As yet no bistros have made their submittal for 2015. Applications will open up
again in April.
8
b.
Administrative Approvals (none)
c.
Draft Agenda for the Regular Planning Board Meeting on January 28, 2015
 2483 W. Maple Rd., Cranbrook Car Care - Preliminary Site Plan Review and
Special Land Use Permit for a drive-through;
 One of the two E. Lincoln properties for Final Site Plan Review;
 Board members decided to move up the proposed February 11, 2015 study
session on garage front houses to the January 28, 2015 meeting.
d.
Other Business
 Long-Range Planning Session is scheduled for January 31 and options for
providing some additional parking around town will be discussed;
 The Corridor Improvement Authority ("CIA") meets January 22. They are looking
at approving the Development Plan and TIF Plan and starting the process of
setting the base which will allow them to capture money to be used to fund public
parking in the Triangle District. From the CIA it will go to the City Commission.
 The Multi-Modal Transportation Board met and they are starting a study of the W.
Maple Rd. Corridor. They have decided to set up an informal Multi-Modal
Steering Committee that will meet monthly through April or May.
01-10-15
PLANNING DIVISION ACTION ITEMS
a.
Staff report on previous requests (none)
b.
Additional items from tonight’s meeting (none)
01-11-15
ADJOURNMENT
No further business being evident, board members motioned to adjourn at 10:10 p.m.
Jana Ecker
Planning Director
9
AGENDA
MEMORANDUM
Community Development
DATE:
January 23, 2015
TO:
Planning Board members
FROM:
Matthew Baka, Planning Department
SUBJECT:
2483 W. Maple – Preliminary Site Plan & Special Land Use Permit
Executive Summary
The site located at 2483 Woodward Avenue is the current location of Cranbrook Auto
Care. The petitioner intends to demolish the current building and construct a one-story
bank with a drive-thru.
The existing site is zoned B-1. The bank use is permitted; however the drive-in teller
must obtain a Special Land Use Permit. Should Preliminary and Final Site Plan
approval be granted by the Planning Board, a public hearing will be held by the City
Commission to consider granting the proposed Special Land Use permit (“SLUP”).
The applicant must meet the requirements outlined in Article 07, section 7.36 in order to
receive “SLUP” approval from the City Commission to operate the proposed drive-in
teller.
1.0
Land Use and Zoning
1.1
Existing Land Use - The building is the location of Cranbrook Auto Care.
1.2
Existing Zoning – The building is currently zoned B-1, Neighborhood
Business. As stated, the proposed bank building is permitted; however the
drive-in will require a Special Land Use Permit to operate drive-in services.
1.3
2016 Report – The site is not located within the boundaries of the Downtown
Birmingham 2016 Overlay District.
1.4
Summary of Land Use and Zoning - The following chart summarizes existing
land use and zoning adjacent to and/or in the vicinity of the subject site.
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\3 - 2483 W. Maple.-PSP.DFCU.01.28.15.doc
North
2.0
South
East
West
Existing Land Commercial
Use
(Bloomfield
Twp.)
Single Family Single Family Commercial
Residential
Residential
(Bloomfield
Twp.)
Existing
0-1,
Office
Zoning District Building
District
2016
Regulating
NA
Plan
R-1, Single- R-1, Single- B-1,
Local
Family
Family
Business
Residential
Residential
District
NA
NA
NA
Setback and Height Requirements
The attached summary sheet details the bulk and area requirements for the
proposed bank building.
3.0
Screening and Landscaping
3.1
Parking Lot Screening – Article 4, section 4.53 of the Zoning Ordinance
requires all parking facilities that abut a street, alley, passage or mixed
passage to provide a screen wall. Screen walls must be masonry walls
with an exterior face of brick, precast aggregate panels, sculptured block,
stone, architecturally treated concrete or similar materials, and must be
solid for at least the lower 32” in height. The plans as submitted do not
indicate any screen walls facing the public right of way. The applicant
will be required to provide the required screen walls or obtain a
variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
In accordance with section 4.49 (B7) A 6’ high masonry wall is required
along the rear property line of any parking facility which immediately
adjoins the rear lot line of property located in a residentially zoned district.
The petitioner proposes to construct a 5’ 6” Block wall along the east and
south property lines sides of the parking facility. The applicant will be
required to increase the height of the screenwall by 6” or obtain a
variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
3.2
Dumpster Screening - The applicant is proposing to construct a dumpster
enclosure at the southwest corner of the parcel. The Birmingham Zoning
Ordinance requires that the dumpster enclosure must be 6’ in height and
constructed of masonry with a gate, and the proposed materials must
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\3 - 2483 W. Maple.PSP.DFCU.01.28.15.doc
match or complement the exterior of the building on site. The applicant is
proposing to screen the dumpster with 6’ high screen walls constructed of
CMU with a brick veneer to match the building and wood slate/steel frame
gates.
4.0
3.3
Mechanical Screening - The plans indicate two condensing units located
at the northeast corner of the building. The applicant proposes to screen
the units with landscaping. The Zoning Ordinance permits landscaping to
be used for screening purposes provided that a permanent visual barrier
is created by said landscaping. The proposed landscaping to be used is
30” Hicks Yews. The applicant must provide information verifying that the
Yews are tall enough to fully screen the mechanical units.
3.2
Landscaping – The proposed site landscaping will be reviewed in greater
detail during Final Site Plan review. However, the petitioner has provided
a detailed landscaping plan that indicates generous landscaping
throughout the site.
Parking, Loading and Circulation
4.1
Parking – In accordance with Article 04, section 4.41 of the Zoning
Ordinance, the petitioner is required to provide off-street parking for the
proposed building and use. The proposed building is 3,600 sq. ft., based
on the proposed use as office the applicant is required to provide twelve
(12) parking spaces (3,600/300). The plans as submitted indicate
eighteen (18) spaces will be provided. The proposed plan meets the
parking requirement in regards to the number of spaces provided.
However, the Zoning Ordinance requires that each parking space be a
minimum of 180 sq. ft. Several of the spaces on the plan are 9’ x 18’, or
162 sq. ft. The size of all parking spaces must be increased to 180
sq. ft. or the applicant must obtain a variance from the BZA.
4.2
Loading – In accordance with Section 4.41 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance,
no loading spaces are required for office uses less than 10,000 square
feet. Banks are classified as Offices Uses, thus do not require loading
spaces for buildings less than 10,000 square feet.
4.3
Vehicular Circulation – Vehicular access to the site is provided via two
curb-cuts directly off W. Maple Rd. and S. Cranbrook respectively. The
driveway width of each curb cut is 22’. The aisle width parallel to the
drive-thru is 28.63 ft.
Drive-in teller traffic will enter from the W. Maple side of the site and exit
on the S. Cranbrook side. The drive-through lanes measure 10’ in width
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\3 - 2483 W. Maple.PSP.DFCU.01.28.15.doc
and will accommodate at least four vehicles stacked in each lane at any
given time.
4.4
5.0
Pedestrian Access & Circulation – The main pedestrian access to the site
is provided from the public sidewalk on both W. Maple and S. Cranbrook
leading to the front door of the building. In addition there is a pedestrian
path proposed along the southwest side of the building that will wrap
around the front and back of the building providing access to the
pedestrian entrances. A rear pedestrian entrance also is proposed at the
northeast corner of the building.
Lighting
The applicant has submitted a photometric plan providing information regarding
proposed lighting to the building, drive-through teller and parking area. The
luminaire schedule on the photometric indicates that there will be eight (8) pole
mounted LED lights mounted at 20’ and six (6) LED canopy lights. However, the
plans show only six (6) pole mounted lights and four (4) canopy lights. The
applicant must clarify how many of each light are proposed. Also, pole mounted
lights adjacent to residential properties are limited to 13’ in height.
In addition, the photometric plan shows several locations where the foot-candle
levels at the property lines abutting the single family residential properties
exceeds the 0.6 foot candle maximum for light trespass as determined by the
Zoning Ordinance.
Finally, the applicant has not provided the max/min variation ratio for the parking
area as required. The maximum variation permitted inside the parking and
circulation area as defined by the Zoning Ordinance is 20/1.
The applicant will be required to provide an accurate photometric plan that
is complaint with the Zoning Ordinance for review at Final Site Plan.
6.0
Signage
In accordance with Article 1.0, section 1.04 (B) of the Birmingham Sign
Ordinance, Combined Sign Area - For all buildings, including multi-tenant office
or retail buildings, the combined area of all types of signs shall not exceed 1
square foot (1.5 square feet for addresses on Woodward Avenue) for each linear
foot of principal building frontage. The plans as submitted indicate that the
proposed building will have 73’ of principle building frontage permitting 73 sq. ft.
of signage.
The applicant is proposing to install one (1) ground sign and one (1) name letter
sign. The face of the proposed ground sign measures 56.5” h x 76.5” w or 30
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\3 - 2483 W. Maple.PSP.DFCU.01.28.15.doc
square feet per side for a total of 60 square feet for both sides. In accordance
with Section 86, Article 1.0, Table B, no ground sign may be more than thirty
square feet per side. The proposal meets this requirement. The sign is
proposed to be mounted 6’ 2.5” above grade. In accordance with Section 86,
Article 1.0, Table B, no ground sign may be more than eight feet above grade.
The proposal meets this requirement.
The applicant has submitted specification for a 42.7 sq. ft. name letter sign to be
mounted to the building. The combined area of the two signs will cause the sign
proposal to exceed the 73 sq. ft. permitted. Accordingly, the applicant will be
required to modify the sign plan so that the total amount of signage
proposed does not exceed 73 sq. ft.
7.0
Departmental Reports
7.1. Engineering Division – The Engineering Dept. has reviewed the plans dated
January 8, 2015, for the above referenced project. The following comments are
offered:
1. The use of the alley for this project is similar to the current gas station use.
Although it appears to be private property, the alley portion is actually owned
by the City. It is our understanding that the owner will continue to be
charged a lease payment for the use of this property. We agree that this is
in the best interest of both parties to continue this relationship.
2. The existing alley is drained by a public combined sewer. It appears that the
new parking lot can be designed to direct water to this sewer, so it can
remain in service. The sewer is getting beyond its original expected service
life, however. If the old sewer is going to be used again, it shall be internally
inspected and a digital file of the results shall be sent to our office for review
and approval. Serious defects will have to be repaired at the owner’s
expense.
3. The water and sewer service laterals for the new building shall be installed
new from the building to the public water mains and sewer.
Permits required from our department shall include:
• Right-of-way Permit
• Sidewalk Permit
The Stormwater Runoff Permit will be waived due to the large amount of
pavement currently on the site. A permit will also be required from the Road
Commission for Oakland Co. for work in the Cranbrook Rd. right-of-way.
7.2 Department of Public Services – No concerns were reported.
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\3 - 2483 W. Maple.PSP.DFCU.01.28.15.doc
7.3 Fire Department – No concerns were reported.
7.4 Police Department - No concerns were reported.
7.5 Building Division – In addition to their standard comments the Building Dept. had
the following comment;
1. Drinking fountains are projecting into corridor without side protection.
8.0
Approval Criteria
In accordance with section 126 Article 07, section 7.27 the proposed plans for
development must meet the following conditions:
(1) The location, size and height of the building, walls and fences shall be such
that there is adequate landscaped open space so as to provide light, air and
access to the persons occupying the structure.
(2) The location, size and height of the building, walls and fences shall be such
that there will be no interference with adequate light, air and access to
adjacent lands and buildings.
(3) The location, size and height of the building, walls and fences shall be such
that they will not hinder the reasonable development of adjoining property
not diminish the value thereof.
(4) The site plan, and its relation to streets, driveways and sidewalks, shall be
such as to not interfere with or be hazardous to vehicular and pedestrian
traffic.
(5) The proposed development will be compatible with other uses and buildings
in the neighborhood and will not be contrary to the spirit and purpose of this
chapter.
(6) The location, shape and size of required landscaped open space is such as
to provide adequate open space for the benefit of the inhabitants of the
building and the surrounding neighborhood.
9.0
Conformance with Downtown Birmingham 2016 Report
The site is located outside the boundaries of the 2016 Report Overlay District.
10.0
Design Review
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\3 - 2483 W. Maple.PSP.DFCU.01.28.15.doc
The design review for the site and building will be covered in greater detail during
Final Site Plan review. The applicant has submitted preliminary design plans and
material usage for each façade. The building as proposed will be primarily
constructed of red face brick with limestone head caps above the windows and
almond color porcelain tile on the soffit. The roof is proposed to be black asphalt
shingles. In addition, the applicant will be required to comply with the window
standards of Article 04 section 4.83 WN-01, which requires that 70% glazing be
provided on any ground floor façade that faces a street, plaza, park or parking
area. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to provide 70% glazing on
all sides of the building or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning
Appeals.
11.0
Recommendation
Based on our review of the site plan submitted, we recommend the Planning
Board APPROVE the Preliminary Site Plan review and SLUP application for
2483 W. Maple subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will be required to provide the required screen walls or obtain a
variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
2. The applicant will be required to increase the height of the screenwall by 6” or
obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
3. The size of all parking spaces must be increased to 180 sq. ft. or the
applicant must obtain a variance from the BZA.
4. The applicant will be required to provide an accurate photometric plan that is
compliant with the Zoning Ordinance for review at Final Site Plan.
5. The applicant modify the sign plan so that the total amount of signage
proposed does not exceed 73 sq. ft.
6. The applicant will be required to provide 70% glazing on all sides of the
building or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
7. Compliance with the requirements of the City Departments.
12.0
Sample Motion Language
Motion to APPROVE the Preliminary Site Plan review and Special Land Use
Permit for 2483 W. Maple with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will be required to provide the required screen walls or obtain a
variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
2. The applicant will be required to increase the height of the screenwall by 6” or
obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
3. The size of all parking spaces must be increased to 180 sq. ft. or the
applicant must obtain a variance from the BZA.
4. The applicant will be required to provide an accurate photometric plan that is
compliant with the Zoning Ordinance for review at Final Site Plan.
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\3 - 2483 W. Maple.PSP.DFCU.01.28.15.doc
5. The applicant modify the sign plan so that the total amount of signage
proposed does not exceed 73 sq. ft.
6. The applicant will be required to provide 70% glazing on all sides of the
building or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
7. Compliance with the requirements of the City Departments.
OR
Motion to DENY the Preliminary Site Plan review and Special Land Use Permit
for 2483 W. Maple.
OR
Motion to POSTPONE the Preliminary Site Plan review and Special Land Use
Permit for 2483 W. Maple.
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\3 - 2483 W. Maple.PSP.DFCU.01.28.15.doc
Zoning Compliance Summary Sheet
Special Land Use Permit
Final Site Plan Review
For
2483 W. Maple
Dearborn Federal Credit Union
Existing Site:
Cranbrook Auto Care
Zoning:
B-1, Neighborhood Business
Land Use:
Gasoline/service station
Existing Land Use and Zoning of Adjacent Properties:
North
South
East
West
Existing Land
Use
Commercial
(Bloomfield
Twp.)
Single Family
Residential
Single Family
Residential
Commercial
(Bloomfield
Twp.)
Existing
Zoning District
0-1, Office
Building
District
R-1, SingleFamily
Residential
R-1, SingleFamily
Residential
B-1, Local
Business
District
NA
NA
NA
NA
2016
Regulating
Plan
Land Area:
existing:
proposed:
0.42 acres (18295.2 sf)
0.42 acres (18295.2 sf)
Minimum Lot Area:
required:
proposed:
N/A
N/A
Minimum Floor Area:
required:
proposed:
N/A
N/A
Open Space:
required:
proposed:
N/A
N/A
Front Setback:
required:
proposed:
0 ft.
7.89 ft.
Side Setbacks:
required:
proposed:
0 ft.
51.77 ft.(E), 32.16 ft. (W)
Total Side Setbacks:
required:
proposed:
N/A
N/A
Rear Setback:
required:
proposed:
20 ft.
58.78 ft.
permitted:
proposed:
30 ft. and 2 stories
28 ft. and 1 story
Max FAR:
permitted:
proposed:
N/A
N/A
Parking:
required:
proposed:
(3,600 sf ÷ 300) = 12
18 parking spaces
Loading Area:
required:
proposed:
0 loading spaces
0 loading spaces
required:
proposed:
32-inch brick, stone, block along parking lot
facing street, 6’ screenwall abutting Single
family residential.
No screenwall around parking area facing the
street, 5’ 6” ft. high abutting Single family
residential.
Mech. Units:
required:
proposed:
Screenwall or landscaping
Landscaping
Trash Receptacles:
required:
proposed:
Masonry screenwall with wooden gates.
Masonry screenwall with wooden gates.
Max. Bldg. Height &
Number of Stories:
Screening:
Parking:
GENERAL NOTES:
1.
LANDSCAPING SCHEDULE
SYMB. QUAN.
COMMON NAME
BOTANICAL NAME
SIZE
REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS AS PART OF THIS PACKAGE FOR
ALL RELATED SITE ENGINEERING INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
1.1.
ROOT
COMMENTS
53
GROW-LOW
FRAGRANT SUMAC
RHUS AROMATICA
15" HT.
CONT.
EVEN HABIT;
3' O.C.
18
DWARF
BURNING BUSH
EUONYMUS ALATA
'COMPACTA'
36" HT.
B&B
EVEN HABIT;
5' O.C.
SITE SURVEY
1.3.
REMOVAL PLAN
1.4.
OVERALL SITE PLAN
1.5.
PHOTOMETRIC PLAN
2.
REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS AS PART OF THIS PACKAGE FOR
ADDITIONAL RELATED REQUIREMENTS.
3.
34
HICKS YEW
TAXUS x MEDIA
'HICKSII'
59
KARL FORESTER
FEATHER REED GRASS
38
30" HT.
5 GAL.
EVEN HABIT;
3' O.C.
CALAMAGROSTIS
X ACUTIFLORA 'K.F.'
-
3 GAL.
FULL HABIT;
3' O.C.
DWARF FOUNTAIN
GRASS
PENNISETUM
ALOPECUROIDES
'HAMELN'
-
3 GAL.
EVEN HABIT;
3' O.C.
HAPPY RETURNS
DAYLILY
HEMEROCALLIS
'HAPPY RETURNS'
-
ALL WORK TO CONFORM TO THE CURRENT CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
4.
48
1 GAL.
18
36
23
3
FLOWERING
PEAR
Pyrus calleryana
'Bradford'
SITE PLAN KEY NOTES:
FULL, WELL
ROOTED; 2' O.C.
30' HT.
MAX.
28.6
GAL.
EVEN HABIT;
20' O.C. MIN
2
BARBERRY
BERBERIS THUNBERGII
'ATROPURPUREA NANA'
36" HT.
3 GAL.
EVEN HABIT;
3' O.C.
BLUE SEDGE
GRASS
HELICTOTRICHON
SEMPERVIRENS
36" HT.
2.25
GAL.
FULL HABIT;
2' O.C.
BROADMOOR
JUNIPER
JUNIPERUS SABINA
'BROADMOOR'
24" HT.
2.5
QUART.
FULL HABIT;
2' O.C.
SAUCER
MAGNOLIA
MAGNOLIA
SOULANGEANA
20'-30'
HT.
MAX.
28.6
GAL.
EVEN HABIT;
20' O.C. MIN
ALL ROOF CONDUCTORS TO TIE UNDERGROUND INTO THE STORM SEWER REFER TO SHEET A-101.
1
3
TITLE PAGE
1.2.
#
ENTRY | EGRESS DRIVES
DRIVE THRU CANOPY TO INCLUDE:
TWO DRIVE-THROUGH LANES
ONE (1) DRIVE-THROUGH (VAT) LANE
ONE (1) ATM LANE
TWO (2) BY-PASS LANES AT OUTSIDE.
PROVIDE CONCRETE UNDER DRIVE THRU CANOPY LANES.
PLAZA TREE AT GRATE
2.1
UNDERSIDE OF DRIVE-THROUGH CANOPY TO INCLUDE FULLY RECESSED
LIGHTING FIXTURES AS REQUIRED (REFER TO SHEET A-101 FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
LANDSCAPE NOTES
2.2
SPEAKERS AT DRIVE-THROUGH SHALL NOT CAUSE NOISE THAT IS AUDIBLE
FROM ADJACENT SITES.
1.
2.
PLAN MATERIAL TO BE NO. 1 GRADE, NORTHERN GROWN NURSERY STOCK AND SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR A
PERIOD OF 2 YEARS. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN A WORKMAN LIKE ORDER TO THE STANDARDS SET
FORTH BY THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, AND IN A TIMELY MANNER.
LANDSCAPE IS TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE.
DURING THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF ESTABLISHMENT, THE OWNER SHALL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING
THE PLANTS IN A HEALTHY, NEAT AND ORDERLY APPEARANCE WHICH SHALL INCLUDE WATERING, CULTIVATION,
AND WEED CONTROL.
3.
ALL PLANTING BEDS TO BE DRESSED WITH 4" DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH.
4.
LANDSCAPING TO BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM, LAWNS AND SHRUB AREAS SHALL BE
WATERED BY SEPARATE ZONES TO MINIMIZE OVER WATERING.
5.
PRUNING OF LANDSCAPE MATERIALS SHALL BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM ORDER TO ACHIEVE PROPER MATURATION OF
PLANTINGS.
6.
2.3
3
1
VEHICLE PROTECTION OR LANDSCAPING IF DEEMED ABLE TO DURING CONSTRUCTION.
4
4
5
SUBMITTAL FOR ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS AS PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE PACKAGE
CONTRACTOR. ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO SIGN BY BUILDING GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
7
7
AUTO CONTROL VALVES ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN NDS VALVE BOXES OF APPROPRIATE SIZE.
4.
ALL CONTROL WIRING DOWNSTREAM OF THE CONTROLLER IS TO BE 14 AWG, UL APPROVED FOR DIRECT BURY.
5.
ALL ROTORS AND SPRAY POP-UPS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON SWING PIPE.
6.
ALL QCV SHALL BE INSTALLED ON 3-ELBOW PVC SWING JOINTS.
7.
SYSTEM DESIGN BASED UPON 22 GPM @ 60 PSI.
8.
ANY CHANGES IN AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLY SHOULD BE NOTED AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE DESIGN SHOULD BE
MADE.
9.
CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WATER PRESSURE AND AVAILABILITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
NEW CMU | BRICK (MATCHING BUILDING FACE BRICK) REAR ENTRY SCREEN WALL.
REFER TO L-102 FOR PLANS | DETAILS | ELEVATIONS.
ALL WORK IS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL CODES AND ORDINANCES.
3.
NEW MONUMENT GROUND SIGN "DFCU BIRMINGHAM " LOGO. REFER TO SIGNAGE
BY OWNER CONTRACT AND SUBMITTED HEREIN. FOUNDATION & CONDUITS BY SIGN
IRRIGATION SPECIFICATIONS
ALL UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS ARE TO BE MADE WITH 3-M WIRE CONNECTORS, DBY.
NEW FLAG POLE AND GROUND LIGHTING. REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEERING PACKAGE
FOR ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS.
ALL PLANTING BEDS TO HAVE EDGING AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REQUIREMENTS.
2.
NEW CMU | BRICK (MATCHING BUILDING FACE BRICK) DUMPSTER SCREEN WALL.
REFER TO L-102 FOR PLANS | DETAILS | ELEVATIONS. ADDITION OF BOLLARDS FOR
6
1.
DRIVE THRU ATM UNIT AND LANE
PLANTING BED TO BE RAISED TO 18" ABOVE GRADE AND WITHIN ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
BY CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.
5
8
BUILDING WALL SIGN "DFCU BIRMINGHAM" LOGO. REFER TO SIGNAGE SUBMITTAL FOR
ELEVATION AND DETAILS AS PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE PACKAGE BY OWNER
CONTRACT AND SUBMITTED HEREIN.
10. 120V. TO CONTROLLER AND COPPER STUB, BY OTHER THAN IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR.
6
11. THERE WILL BE NO SUBSTITUTIONS OR CHANGES TO THE IRRIGATION DESIGN ALLOWED WITHOUT DIRECT, WRITTEN
APPROVAL FROM THE IRRIGATION CONSULTANT.
PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS PER ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4.20 LA-01
MEETS OR EXCEEDS CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS:
OVERALL SITE LANDSCAPING
STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS
2015 01-09
PRELIMINARY SPA
AML
DATE
ISSUED FOR
BY
8
ARCONCEPTS ARCHITECTS
2
2.2
2.1
Arconcepts
2.3
nc.
Architects I Designers I Facility Planners
I
Arconcepts
nc.
CONSULTANT:
1
PROJECT:
3
DFCU BIRMINGHAM
NEW BRANCH FACILITY
2483 W. MAPLE ROAD
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
2
L-102
LANDSCAPE PLAN
PROJECT # DFC14-024
NOT ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION
1
L-101
LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN
SCALE : 1/16" = 1'-0"
CIVIL ENGINEERS BACKGROUND
USED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES
ONLY AS IT PERTAINS TO
ARCHITECTURAL LANDSCAPING
PLAN HEREIN.
SEAL:
NORTH
SHEET:
L-101
GENERAL NOTES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
BRICK VENEER TO MATCH BUILDING
ON 6" CMU
5.
6.
SOLID
1" x 6" R.S. EXTERIOR GRADE STAINED AND FINISHED
PIPE FRAME
STRUCTURAL GENERAL NOTES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
3
L-102
RECEPTACLE ELEVATION DETAIL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
12'-9"
ALL CONSTRUCTION TO CONFORM TO APPLICABLE MICHIGAN BARRIER
FREE AND ADA REQUIREMENTS.
ALL LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED AND DIRECTED DOWNWARD.
CIVIL ENGINEER TO PROVIDE ADJACENT SITE CONDITIONS AS REQUIRED
FOR DRAINAGE / RUN OFF DUE TO PROPOSED SITE GRADING.
EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS AS SHOWN ARE FROM OFFICE RECORDS;
NO GUARANTEE IS GIVEN AS TO ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS THEREOF;
CONTACT MISS DIG (1-800-482-7171) SEVENTY-TWO HOURS (72) PRIOR TO
ANY PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SO THAT CONFLICTS WITH UTILITIES MAY BE
RESOLVED.
ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF
BIRMINGHAM CURRENT STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY ENGINEER AND / OR THE AUTHORITY
HAVING JURISDICTION, 48-HOURS PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF
CONSTRUCTION.
28 DAY CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, fc' = 4,500 PSI OR GREATER
THE CONCRETE MIX DESIGN SHALL CONFORM TO ACI 318-08 CHAPTER 4
REQUIREMENTS FOR EXPOSURE CLASS F3.
CONCRETE SHALL HAVE AN AIR CONTENT OR 5.5% BY VOLUME, PLUS OR
MINUS 1.5%.
CALCIUM CHLORIDE SHALL NOT BE ADDED TO THE CONCRETE MIX DESIGN
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF MASONRY, fm' = 1,500 PSI OR GREATER
MORTAR FOR MASONRY SHALL BE TYPE "N"
NET AREA COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF MASONRY UNITS SHALL BE 2,150 PSI
OR GREATER
GROUT FOR MASONRY SHALL HAVE A 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF
2,000 PSI OR GREATER
WELDED WIRE MESH REINFORCING SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A185, WITH
A MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH, fy = 60,000 PSI
ALL OTHER STEEL REINFORCING FOR CONCRETE OR MASONRY SHALL BE
DEFORMED BARS, CONFORMING TO ASTM A615
STEEL PLATES, CHANNELS, AND ANGLES SHALL BE OF ASTM A36 MATERIAL
STEEL W-SHAPES SHALL BE OF ASTM A992 MATERIAL
ALL WELDING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2006 AMERICAN
WELDING SOCIETY STRUCTURAL WELDING CODE, AWS D1.1
HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A123
THE OWNER SHALL ENGAGE AND RETAIN A QUALIFIED SPECIAL INSPECTION
AGENCY FOR THE SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING OF STEEL, CONCRETE,
AND MASONRY AS REQUIRED BY THE 2009 MICHIGAN BUILDING CODE,
TABLES 1704.3 (STEEL), 1704.4 (CONCRETE), AND 1704.5.1 (MASONRY)
GROUND PAD PER N.E.C. 250-91
11'-0"
3'-8"
3'-8"
3'-8"
POST - GROUT SOLID
6" REINFORCED
CONCRETE SLAB
1
8'-6"
10'-0"
L-102
CONTAINER
DIMENSION: 8'-0"
WIDE X 5'-0" DEEP X
4'-0" HIGH. CLEAR
INSIDE DIMENSION TO
BE 11'-0" WIDE X 8'-0"
DEEP X 5'-0" HIGH.
BRICK VENEER TO
MATCH BUILDING ON
6" CMU
TRASH RECEPTICLE BY
OWNER
WOOD SLAT / STEEL
FRAME GATE
STEEL POST
POST - GROUT SOLID
ARCHITECT NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMATION OR
CLARIFICATION OF ANY EXISTING CONDITIONS. ALL CONDITIONS
PROVIDED ASSUMED TO BE ACCURATE. CONTRACTOR TO
CONFIRM ALL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY
OWNER IF DISCREPANCIES EXIST.
3
L-102
2
TAPERED
LIMESTONE CAP
L-102
RECEPTACLE PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
LOCATION OF RECEPTACLE
SCREEN WALL ON CIVIL
DRAWINGS
FACE BRICK - MATCH BUILDING
BRICK. TIES EVERY 3 COURSES
5'-0"
TAPERED
LIMESTONE CAP
DRIP EDGE (TYPICAL)
CONTINUOUS BEAD OF SEALANT
UNDER HEMMED DRIP EDGE.
FACE BRICK - MATCH BUILDING
BRICK TIES EVERY 3 COURSES
6" CMU WALL W/ #5 VERTICAL
REINFORCED BARS @ 32" O.C. AND
HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT
EVERY 16" O.C.
6" CMU WALL W/ #5 VERTICAL
REINFORCED BARS @ 32" O.C. AND
HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT
EVERY 16" O.C.
L-102
ELEVATION @ SCREEN WALL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
PRELIMINARY SPA
AML
DATE
ISSUED FOR
BY
ARCONCEPTS ARCHITECTS
27 FULL BRICK COURSES
5
2015 01-09
Arconcepts
nc.
Architects I Designers I Facility Planners
Arconcepts
I
6" REINFORCED
CONCRETE SLAB ON
MIN. 6" SAND BASE
REFER TO STRUCTURAL
DRAWINGS FOR CONCRETE
SPECIFICATIONS/ ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
nc.
CONSULTANT:
4'-0"
GROUT SOLID WITH
CONCRETE - GRADE B
NEW PAVING/ GRADE
MATCH EXACTLY EXISTING
SURFACE. ALLOW NO GRADE
DIFFERENTIALS IN TRANSITION OF
EXISTING TO NEW SURFACE.
#5 BAR DOWEL @ 32" O.C.
3'-6" MIN.
10" x 3'-6" DEEP (MIN.) CONCRETE
FOOTING W/ (2) HORIZONTAL - # 4
BARS CONTINUOUS TOP AND
BOTTOM
PROJECT:
DFCU BIRMINGHAM
NEW BRANCH FACILITY
42" MIN.
2483 W. MAPLE ROAD
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
CONCRETE FOUNDATION
LANDSCAPE DETAILS
PROJECT # DFC14-024
WELDED PLATE ASSEMBLY
(PROVIDED WITH POST)
1'-6" MIN.
4
L-102
POST DETAIL
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
10"
1
L-102
RECEPTACLE SCREEN WALL DETAIL
NOT ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION
SEAL:
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH
SHEET:
L-102
6
A-201
72'-9"
30'-0"
4'-0"
3'-0 1/2"
15'-11 1/2"
3'-0 1/2"
3'-11 1/2"
FLAG POLE AT FRONT
ENTRY TO BE
MANUFACTURER: ROCKET
ENTERPRISE, INC / STYLE HEAVY DUTY COMMERCIAL /
COLOR - DARK BRONZE
ANODIZED / 30' HEIGHT /
SINGLE FLAG. REFER TO
CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS
FOR EXACT LOCATION.
FLAGPOLE LIGHTING TO BE
INCLUDED AS PART OF THIS
PROJECT (REFER TO CIVIL
ENGINEERING DRAWINGS)
1
J
L
2
L
J-EM
5'-0"
J-EM
OFFICE 3
OFFICE 4
VESTIBULE
ROOF CONDUCTOR TO TIE
INTO STORM SEWER
UNDERGROUND (REFER TO CIVIL
ENGINEERING DRAWINGS) TYP.
2
J
J
5'-0" CLR.
WELCOME
OFFICE 5
17'-3 1/2"
OFFICE 2
OFFICE 1
OFFICE 6
9'-6 1/2"
WAITING
3'-3
"
"
3'-3
51'-10"
WAITING
5
A-201
JC
J
VOUCHER
QUEUING
I.T.
T-4
DATA/
SBC
LANIX
27x19
T-3
CARD ACCESS
(2) 17" W UNITS SxS
4 TOTAL - STACKED
BUILDING SIGNAGE - REFER TO
ELEVATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
UPS
20"W x
28"D
FIRE
ALARM
WOMEN'S
ALARM
SANITARY SEWER
CONNECTION
T-2
MEN'S
LIGHT FIXTURES LOCATED IN
CEILING SOFFIT, TYP.
J
T-1
46'-10"
3
A-201
BREAK RM.
OFFICE 7
2015 01-09
PRELIMINARY SPA
AML
DATE
ISSUED FOR
BY
TELLERS
ARCONCEPTS ARCHITECTS
F-1 CONDENSER
DISCONNECT
Arconcepts
SBC INCOMING
ELEC.
24" clear
PNL-MAIN
SECURED
SAFE
40 W x
30 7/8 D x
72 H
WATER
METER
F-2 CONDENSER
DISCONNECT
MECHANICAL RM.
36" clear
J
24" clear
DRIVE-THROUGH
TELLER
24" clear
WORK
ROOM
H
F-1
CONDENSER
I
Arconcepts
nc.
MECHANICAL UNITS
J
J
EM
GAS
3
Architects I Designers I Facility Planners
CONSULTANT:
GAS
J
nc.
F-2
CONDENSER
5'-0" HIGH CMU | BRICK
(MATCHING BUILDING
FACEBRICK) AND LIMESTONE
CAP.
PROJECT:
DFCU BIRMINGHAM
NEW BRANCH FACILITY
2483 W. MAPLE ROAD
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
ARCHITECTURAL FLOOR PLAN
PROJECT # DFC14-024
4
A-201
1
A-101
ARCHITECTURAL FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
NOT ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION
SEAL:
NORTH
SHEET:
A-101
6
12
6
12
6
12
12
6
PREFINISHED METAL GUTTERS AND
DOWNSPOUTS
6
(2) COURSES OF 12" X 24" TILE.
REFER TO FINISH SCHEDULE
FOR SPECIFICATION
2'-0"
2'-0"
2'-0"
M-9
BRICK FACADE
REDLAND BRICK
LAWRENCEVILLE
4-311YORKTOWN MODULAR
M-10
BRICK MORTAR
SOLOMON COLORS
SGS #44H RED COLOR
DISTRIBUTED BY COLONIAL BRICK / CONTACT: DAVE HALL - (734) 789.1011.. REFER TO
STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR MORTAR SPECIFICATIONS.
M-11
SHINGLES
CERTAINTEED
MOIRE BLACK
40 YEAR SHINGLES. CONTACT DAN ZERNEC 800.359.7298 X3506.
M-12
PRE-FINISHED ALUM.
FASCIA
QUALITY ALUMINUM PRODUCTS SOLID COLOR
ROYAL BROWN
SUBMIT COLOR CHART FOR APPROVAL
M-13
PORCELAIN TILE
CIOT
GET
ALMOND
POLYMER-MODIFIED
HYDRAULIC TILE GROUT
MAPEI
KER 700 SERIES
ULTRA / COLOR
15+ BONE
2'-0"
LIMESTONE HEAD CAP
9'-4"
TOP OF R.O.
109'-04"
6
A-201
1
A-201
LOTUS POD
SW7572
SOFFIT - HORIZONTAL SURFACE. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR FINISHING INSTRUCTIONS. TAPE
JOINTS/ SKIM COAT COMPLETE SURFACE/ EXT. GRADE PRIMER AND 2 COATS FINISH PAINT.
FACEBRICK. REFER TO FINISH
SCHEDULE FOR SPECIFICATION
M-15
EXTERIOR GRADE PAINT
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
DURATIONS
EXTERIOR PAINT
BITTERSWEET STEM
SW7536
FASCIA - VERTICAL SURFACE. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR FINISHING INSTRUCTIONS. TAPE
JOINTS/ SKIM COAT COMPLETE SURFACE/ EXT. GRADE PRIMER AND 2 COATS FINISH PAINT.
M-18
GUTTER / RECTANGUALR
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT COLOR VARIES
DEPENDING ON SURFACE
CONDITIONS.
IMPERIAL BROWN @ BRICK CONDITIONS
WHITE @ FIBERGLAS COLUMN LOCATIONS
S-5
EXTERIOR PAINT
CHUTNEY BROWN
#SW1315
METAL DOORS / FRAMES
PRIMED / PAINTED WITH EXTERIOR GRADE PAINT PRODUCT
DISTRIBUTED BY SHERWIN WILLIAMS / CONTACT: ROGER HALL (216) 224-7509.
COL-1
4'-8 3/8"
6
COL-3
2'-0"
2'-0"
2'-0"
2'-0"
(2) COURSES OF 12" X 24" TILE.
REFER TO FINISH SCHEDULE FOR
SPECIFICATION
9'-4"
ALL EXTERIOR FINISHES PER
ASSOCIATED EXTERIOR FINISH
MATERIALS BOARD SUBMITTED
WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL PKG.
4'-2 3/8"
5'-4"
LIMESTONE HEAD CAP
FIBERGLASS COLUMN COVER
(TYP.)
NORTH ELEVATION
BRICK: 36%
PORCELAIN TILE: 13%
ASPHALT SHINGLES: 33%
OPEN AREA: 18%
FACEBRICK. REFER TO FINISH
SCHEDULE FOR SPECIFICATION
NEW BRICK AND
CMU SCREEN WALL REFER TO DETAILS
FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
BRICK: 46%
PORCELAIN TILE: 8%
ASPHALT SHINGLES: 39%
OPEN AREA: 7%
NO ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT IS
SCHEDULED AS PART OF THIS
PROJECT
HEADER COURSE TYPICAL @ TOP
OF WATERTABLE - PROVIDE SOLID
BRICK FOR HEADER COURSE
RIGHT ELEVATION
1'-2"
3'-0"
CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM TOP
OF FOOTING DIMENSION WITH
ARCHITECT / CIVIL ENGINEER
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
7'-0"
4'-8 3/8"
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
12
12
6
12
6
PREFINISHED METAL GUTTERS AND
DOWNSPOUTS
6
6'-0"
2'-0"
2'-0"
(2) COURSES OF 12" X 24" TILE.
REFER TO FINISH SCHEDULE FOR
SPECIFICATION
2'-0"
FIBERGLASS COLUMN
COVERS (TYP.)
2
A-201
LIMESTONE HEAD CAP
FIBERGLASS COLUMN
COVERS TYP.
9'-4"
DRIVE-THROUGH
WINDOW
4'-2 3/8"
3'-2 9/16"
2'-6 3/8"
REAR ELEVATION
NEW BRICK AND CMU SCREEN
WALL (SHOWN TRANSPARENT FOR
CLARITY) - REFER TO DETAILS FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
ISSUED FOR
BY
Arconcepts
nc.
Architects I Designers I Facility Planners
1x8 TRIM BOARD
WRAPPED WITH ALUM.
I
Arconcepts
nc.
1x4 RAKE BOARD STAIN.
12
6
2x12 FASCIA BOARD
WRAPPED WITH ALUM.
7'-1 11/16"
ASPHALT SINGLES ON 15LB.
FELT.
PREFINISHED METAL
GUTTERS AND
DOWNSPOUTS
2'-0"
EQ
6'-4"
DFCU BIRMINGHAM
NEW BRANCH FACILITY
2483 W. MAPLE ROAD
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EQ
FASCIA - STAINED
15'-2 1/2"
2'-0"
2'-0"
(2) COURSES OF 12" X 24" TILE.
REFER TO FINISH SCHEDULE
FOR SPECIFICATION
FIBERGLASS COLUMN
COVERS
PROJECT:
BIRMINGHAM
EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS
PROJECT # DFC14-024
LIMESTONE HEAD CAP
FACEBRICK. REFER TO FINISH
SCHEDULE FOR SPECIFICATION
BUILDING WALL SIGN UNDER SEPARATE
OWNER CONTRACT.
HEADER COURSE TYPICAL @
TOP OF WATERTABLE PROVIDE SOLID BRICK FOR
HEADER COURSE
8'-4"
6'-0"
DATE
CONSULTANT:
6
LIMESTONE HEAD CAP TYPICAL AT ALL
WINDOWS AS SHOWN
AML
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
12
2'-0"
PRELIMINARY SPA
ARCONCEPTS ARCHITECTS
4
A-201
12
2015 01-09
FACEBRICK. REFER TO FINISH
SCHEDULE FOR SPECIFICATION
HEADER COURSE TYPICAL @ TOP
OF WATERTABLE BEYOND PROVIDE SOLID BRICK FOR
HEADER COURSE
6
ENLARGED REAR ELEVATION
@ EMPLOYEE ENTRY
2'-7 1/2"
6
9'-4"
6'-5 5/16"
WEST ELEVATION
BRICK: 36%
PORCELAIN TILE: 13%
ASPHALT SHINGLES: 47%
OPEN AREA: 4%
ASPHALT SINGLES ON 15LB. FELT.
4'-2 3/8"
BOTTOM OF
FOOTING (MIN.)
95'-10"
EAST ELEVATION
BRICK: 31%
PORCELAIN TILE: 13%
ASPHALT SHINGLES: 50%
OPEN AREA: 6%
COORDINATE DOWNSPOUT TIE INS
WITH CIVIL ENGINEERING
DRAWINGS - PROVIDE (4) FOUR
LEADS AT CORNERS OF BUILDING
AS SHOWN ON ELEVATIONS
LIMESTONE
HEAD CAP
12
TOP OF R.O.
109'-04"
1ST
FLOOR
100'-00"
#200DC
PREFINISHED METAL GUTTERS AND
DOWNSPOUTS
8'-2 3/16"
6'-5 5/16"
6'-5 5/16"
21'-9 5/16" BUILDING HEIGHT
6'-5 5/16"
TOP OF
BEARING
115'-04"
MELTON CLASSICS
4"
R5'-
ROOF PEAK
122'-6"
#200FRP
CONNECTIONS TO FOLLOW MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATION. MONOLITHIC LOOK:
BONDO AT SEAMS AND PRIME/ PAINT ENTIRE COVER IN FIELD WITH SHERWIN WILLIAMS
DURATIONS (LATEX) PURE WHITE #SW1004.
CONNECTIONS TO FOLLOW MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATION. MONOLITHIC LOOK:
BONDO AT SEAMS AND PRIME/ PAINT ENTIRE COVER IN FIELD WITH SHERWIN WILLIAMS
DURATIONS (LATEX) PURE WHITE #SW1004.
CONNECTIONS TO FOLLOW MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATION.
6
2
ROOF PEAK
125'-9"
MELTON CLASSICS
FACTORY PRE-FINISHED SOLID
COLOR GEL COAT - SHERWIN
WILLIAMS PURE WHITE #SW1004
FACTORY PRE-FINISHED SOLID
COLOR GEL COAT - SHERWIN
WILLIAMS PURE WHITE #SW1004
COLUMN TO BE PAINTED IN THE
FIELD - SHERWIN WILLIAMS PURE
WHITE #SW1004
BUILDING FACADE %
CALCULATIONS
A-201
ROOF
PEAK
128'-7"
#200FRP
FASCIA - STAINED
TOP OF R.O.
109'-04"
BOTTOM OF
FOOTING (MIN.)
95'-10"
MELTON CLASSICS
12
TOP OF
BEARING
115'-04"
1ST
FLOOR
100'-00"
FRP CLASSIC COLUMN COVERS
W/ SPLIT & FRP TUSCAN CAP &
BASE @ ENTRY
FRP CLASSIC COLUMN COVERS
W/ SPLIT & FRP TUSCAN CAP &
BASE @ DRIVE-THRU CANOPY
DURACLASSIC 1 PIECE COLUMN
W/ TUSCAN CAP & BASE
ASPHALT SINGLES ON 15LB. FELT.
5
A-201
ROOF
PEAK
123'-11"
LATEX
SEMI-GLOSS
12
FIBERGLASS COLUMN
COVERS (TYP.)
ROOF
PEAK
128'-7"
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
6
TOP OF R.O.
109'-04"
BOTTOM OF
FOOTING (MIN.)
95'-10"
6"
DECORATIVE
COLUMNS
TOP OF
BEARING
115'-04"
1ST
FLOOR
100'-00"
CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE / APPLY MIRACLE SEALANT #511 IMPREGNATOR ON GROUT
ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL FOLLOWING ALL MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS.
DURATIONS
EXTERIOR PAINT
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
6
DISTRIBUTED BY CIOT / CONTACT: ZACK LENNON - (248) 633-5970.
TILE INSTALLATION/ GROUT TO BE EXTERIOR RATED. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE
EXPANSION JOINT LOCATIONS WITH ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
COL-2
8'-2 3/16"
ROOF
PEAK
123'-11"
DISTRIBUTED BY BELDEN BRICK. CONTRACTOR TO COAT BRICK AND MORTAR WITH WATER REPELLENT: SURE KLEAN
WEATHER SHIELD SILOXANE WB CONCENTRATE PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS. BRICK WATER
REPELLENT DISTRIBUTED BY MASONPRO, Inc. 1-800-659-4731
EXTERIOR GRADE PAINT
FRONT ELEVATION
12
REMARKS
M-14
12
6'-0"
21'-9 5/16" BUILDING HEIGHT
6'-5 5/16"
6'-5 5/16"
ROOF
PEAK
128'-7"
COLOR / COLOR CODE
LANDMARK
SERIES TL
10 FULL
COURSES
BOTTOM OF
FOOTING (MIN.)
95'-10"
12"X24"
MANUFACTURER
FIBERGLASS COLUMN COVERS
HEADER COURSE TYPICAL @
TOP OF WATERTABLE PROVIDE SOLID BRICK FOR
HEADER COURSE
4'-2 3/8"
1ST
FLOOR
100'-00"
21'-9 5/16" BUILDING HEIGHT
ASPHALT SINGLES ON 15LB. FELT.
6
DESCRIPTION
9"
TOP OF
BEARING
115'-04"
12
SIZE
MODEL
/ STYLE
ID #
3'-6"
ROOF PEAK
122'-6"
12
7'-1 11/16"
ROOF PEAK
125'-9"
6'-0"
21'-9 5/16" BUILDING HEIGHT
6'-5 5/16"
6'-5 5/16"
ROOF
PEAK
128'-7"
3'-2 9/16"
2'-6 3/8"
EXTERIOR MATERIAL SCHEDULE
FIBERGLASS COLUMN
COVERS
NOT ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION
SEAL:
ALUMINUM DOWNSPOUTS
TIE TO UNDERGROUND. TYP
NORTH
9'-8" M.O.
3
A-201
LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SHEET:
1
A-201
ENLARGED FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
A-201
TM
816 Audio CONTROL MODULE (ACM)
4 X 4 AUDIO SWITCHER
8 X 16 AUDIO SWITCHER
L494
R
CALL 1-800-999-3600
MICROPHONE
SPECIFICATIONS
DI
M ENSI
ONS I
N MI
LLI
M ETRES
(
DI
M ENSI
ONS I
N FEETI
NCHES)
816 Audio CONTROL MODULE (ACM) 00-013541-000B
COLOR:
DARK GREY
MATERIAL:
POLYCARBONATE/ABS
4 X 4 AUDIO SWITCHER:
00-013652-000A
FOUR OPERATORS, UP TO
FOUR CUSTOMER STATIONS
8 X 16 AUDIO SWITCHER:
00-013652-000B
EIGHT OPERATORS, UP TO
SIXTEEN CUSTOMER STATIONS
210
1
SPEAKER
(8 4")
CUSTOMER STATION
DISPLAY INDICATOR
207
IN-COMMUNICATION
INDICATOR LIGHT
PROGRAM BUTTON
THI
RD ANGLE
PROJECTI
ON
(
818"
)
POWER ON / OFF
VOLUME AND
EDITING CONTROL
CUSTOMER STATION
SELECT BUTTON
PLAN VIEW
MEMBRANE PANEL
AUX BUTTON
PAGE 1 OF 4
NEXT STATION BUTTON
120
(
434"
)
FI
LE NO.1781895 REV.2
"
ALL DI
M ENSI
ONS AND DESI
GN CRI
TERI
A
SUBJECT TO CHANGE W I
THOUT NOTI
CE"
PERSPECTIVE
ADJUSTING POTS
9-PIN D-SUB
CONNECTOR
RJ-11 JACK
(OPTIONAL
PRIVACY HANDSET)
FRONT VIEW
SIDE VIEW
RJ-45 JACK
(AUDIO SWITCHER)
BACK VIEW
AUDIO SWITCHER ASSEMBLY
POWER CORD 2438mm (8’-0" LONG) ON
NOTE:
(1) 120V., 50/60 Hz., SINGLE-PHASE, 20AMP
DEDICATED BRANCH CIRCUIT (RECOMMENDED).
RECOMMENDED LOCATION OF AUDIO SWITCHER CCA
TO BE MOUNTED ON WALL (IF POSSIBLE) IN AREA
LOCATE OUTLET WITHIN 1829mm (6’-0").
BEHIND KNEE SPACE PANEL.
(ALLOW ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN FLOOR AND SWITCHER
FOR RJ-45 CONNECTION.)
MOUNTING HARDWARE TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH
WALL CONSTRUCTION AND ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT
WEIGHT OF POWER SUPPLY AND AUDIO SWITCHER.
POWER SUPPLY
WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE):
POWER SUPPLY: 2.7kg (6 LBS.)
4 X 4 AUDIO SWITCHER WITH (2) CARDS: 4kg (9 LBS. FULLY LOADED).
8 X 16 AUDIO SWITCHER WITH (8) CARDS: 7.3kg (16 LBS. FULLY LOADED).
OPTIONAL VIDEO SWITCHER OR
QUEUING MODULE CONNECTOR
CUSTOMER INTERFACE
CCA FOR STATIONS
OPTIONAL AUDIO ADVERTISING
#1 AND #2
118
CONNECTOR
(
458"
)
DI
M ENSI
ONS I
N MI
LLI
M ETRES
(
DI
M ENSI
ONS I
N FEETI
NCHES)
MUST BE MOUNTED WITH POWER SUPPLY
TO THE TOP AS SHOWN TO THE RIGHT.
AUDIO SWITCHER CCA
CONNECTORS FOR
ADDITIONAL CUSTOMER
INTERFACE CCA’S
261
(10516")
PROJECTI
ON
RJ-45 CONNECTORS FOR
AUDIO CONTROL MODULES
PERSPECTIVE
8
21
20
220
20
3
(
4")
(81116")
3
(
4")
FRONT VIEW
SIDE VIEW
RJ-45 CONNECTORS
EXTERNAL CALL
CHIME CONNECTION
BOTTOM VIEW
BACK VIEW
( 16"
)
5
100
25
(
1"
)
338
(
1’
1516"
)
84
5
1
"
ALL DI
M ENSI
ONS AND DESI
GN CRI
TERI
A
SUBJECT TO CHANGE W I
THOUT NOTI
CE"
260
(1014")
13
44
(134")
( 16"
)
168
(658")
(
31516"
)
44
(134")
(
3 16"
)
25
(
1"
)
358
(
1’
2 8"
)
PAGE 2 OF 4
24
15
(
)
16"
MAINTAIN GAP BETWEEN
26mm (1") MINIMUM
FI
LE NO.1781895 REV.2
THI
RD ANGLE
PLAN VIEW
TM
816 Audio CONTROL MODULE (ACM)
4 X 4 AUDIO SWITCHER
8 X 16 AUDIO SWITCHER
R
CALL 1-800-999-3600
DI
M ENSI
ONS I
N MI
LLI
M ETRES
(
DI
M ENSI
ONS I
N FEETI
NCHES)
WIRING DIAGRAM
8 X 16 AUDIO SWITCHER 00-013652-000B
OPERATOR 1
OPERATOR 2
OPERATOR 3
OPERATOR 4
816 AUDIO CONTROL MODULE
4267mm (14’-0") LENGTH RJ-45 INTERCONNECT
CABLE SUPPLIED WITH EACH ACM. (29-016865-000A)
FOR ADDITIONAL CABLING, AN OPTIONAL 30.48meter (100 FT.)
LENGTH IS AVAILABLE (29-016865-000B).
(CAT5e PATCH CABLE CAN BE PURCHASED LOCALLY)
RJ/45
RJ/45
RJ/45
RJ/45
AUDIO POWER CABLE
(41-020084-000A)
PROJECTI
ON
CUSTOMER INTERFACE CCA (41-017131-000B)
FOR CUSTOMER STATIONS 1 & 2
(SHIPPED WITH UNIT AND INSTALLED AT SITE).
(8) TOTAL CCA PIN CONNECTORS
AVAILABLE FOR UP TO (16) CUSTOMER
STATIONS.
PAGE 3 OF 4
OPERATOR 5
OPERATOR 6
RJ/45
OPERATOR 7
OPERATOR 8
RJ/45
RJ/45
"
ALL DI
M ENSI
ONS AND DESI
GN CRI
TERI
A
SUBJECT TO CHANGE W I
THOUT NOTI
CE"
87654321
BELDEN 9154 (91-200121-0062)
#20 AWG, (1) TW. PAIR, FOIL SHIELD
WITH DRAIN, COLOR CODED
AUDIO
ADVERTISING OPTION
CUSTOMER UNIT 1
FI
LE NO.1781895 REV.2
THI
RD ANGLE
POWER CORD CONNECTOR
CUSTOMER UNIT 2
RCA-TYPE,
STEREO PATCH CABLE
CALL CHIME
(31-020173-000A)
BELDEN #9873 INTERFACE
AUDIO CONTROL CABLE.
(1) PER CUSTOMER UNIT.
(91-200029-0062)
OPTIONAL VIDEO SWITCHER
OR QUEUING MODULE CABLE
39-014087-000A
PLUG-IN STEPDOWN
TRANSFORMER
120V, 16.5 VAC
(31-017885-000A)
CALL CHIME OPTION
(KIT-41-017365-000A)
RJ/45
DI
M ENSI
ONS I
N MI
LLI
M ETRES
(
DI
M ENSI
ONS I
N FEETI
NCHES)
WIRING DIAGRAM
4 X 4 AUDIO SWITCHER 00-013652-000A
OPERATOR 1
OPERATOR 2
OPERATOR 3
OPERATOR 4
816 AUDIO CONTROL MODULE
4267mm (14’-0") LENGTH RJ-45 INTERCONNECT
CABLE SUPPLIED WITH EACH ACM. (29-016865-000A)
FOR ADDITIONAL CABLING, AN OPTIONAL 30.48meter (100 FT.)
LENGTH IS AVAILABLE (29-016865-000B).
(CAT5e PATCH CABLE CAN BE PURCHASED LOCALLY)
RJ/45
RJ/45
RJ/45
AUDIO POWER CABLE
(41-020084-000A)
PROJECTI
ON
CUSTOMER INTERFACE CCA (41-017131-000B)
FOR CUSTOMER STATIONS 1 & 2
(SHIPPED WITH UNIT AND INSTALLED AT SITE).
PAGE 4 OF 4
(2) TOTAL CCA PIN CONNECTORS
AVAILABLE FOR UP TO (4) CUSTOMER
STATIONS.
"
ALL DI
M ENSI
ONS AND DESI
GN CRI
TERI
A
SUBJECT TO CHANGE W I
THOUT NOTI
CE"
4321
AUDIO
ADVERTISING OPTION
RCA-TYPE,
STEREO PATCH CABLE
BELDEN 9154 (91-200121-0062)
#20 AWG, (1) TW. PAIR, FOIL SHIELD
WITH DRAIN, COLOR CODED
CUSTOMER UNIT 1
FI
LE NO.1781895 REV.2
THI
RD ANGLE
POWER CORD CONNECTOR
CUSTOMER UNIT 2
CALL CHIME
(31-020173-000A)
BELDEN #9873 INTERFACE
AUDIO CONTROL CABLE.
(1) PER CUSTOMER UNIT.
(91-200029-0062)
OPTIONAL VIDEO SWITCHER
OR QUEUING MODULE CABLE
39-014087-000A
PLUG-IN STEPDOWN
TRANSFORMER
120V, 16.5 VAC
(31-017885-000A)
CALL CHIME OPTION
(KIT-41-017365-000A)
RJ/45
1/6/2015
City of Birmingham MI Mail ­ DFCU
Jana Ecker <jecker@bhamgov.org>
DFCU
1 message
vince pangle <vpangle@strategicprop.com>
Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM
Reply­To: vince pangle <vpangle@strategicprop.com>
To: Jana Ecker <jecker@bhamgov.org>
Cc: Mark Winnik <mark.winnik@dfcufinancial.com>, Jan Manzella <jmanzella@strategicprop.com>
Jana,
I hope you had a nice Holiday! I'm expecting the plans for the above referenced
project in the next day. I will have a site plan, elevations, landscape plan, photo metric plan
and color boards. I sent under separate email details on the drive through communication
equipment. I will provide these cut sheets with the submission. I will provide two
hard copies and a complete PDF.
Additional detail as to the specific operations relative to this facility are as follows.
*Branch Hours of operation: M,T,W F 10am to 6pm
Thursday 10am to 7pm, Saturdays 10am to 2pm
* The Branch will employ 4 full time and 5 part time employees.
* The Branch will offer: Lending, Investment, Savings and Full service ATM.
If I am missing anything please get back to me at your earliest convenience.
Vincent L. Pangle Strategic Property Services 5750 New King Street Suite 120 Troy, Mi. 48098 (248)312­7200 www.strategicprop.com
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=4033b3ab11&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14abb58ed186d38a&siml=14abb58ed186d38a
1/1
AGENDA
MEMORANDUM
Community Development
DATE:
January 22, 2015
TO:
Planning Board members
FROM:
Jana L. Ecker, Planning Director
SUBJECT:
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
Final Site Plan Review
Introduction
The subject sites, 2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln are currently two parcels. The parcel at 2295 E.
Lincoln Street contains an existing two story commercial/industrial building and associated
parking. No changes are proposed to this building or parking area.
The parcel at 2159 E. Lincoln contains a vacant building and parking area that was once
occupied by a Birmingham Public School bus station, garage and repair shop. The applicant has
advised that they intend to combine both parcels into one parcel. The combined site has a
total land area of 2.07 acres and is located on the north side of Lincoln east of Eton Rd.
At this time, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing former bus repair structure and
surrounding pavement and fencing to construct a four story live/work mixed use building. A
majority of the enclosed first floor is proposed to contain on-site parking while the second, third
and fourth floor will contain 36 live/work units. Additional parking is also provided in a surface
lot to the north of the building and on street. The first floor of parking will be 16,834 S.F., the
remaining top three floors will contain the live/work apartment units each floor grossing 17,296
S.F. giving the building a total of 68,722 G.S.F. Thus, the applicant was required to prepare a
Community Impact Study in accordance with Article 7, section 7.27(E) of the Zoning Ordinance
as they are proposing one new building containing more than 20,000 sq.ft. of gross floor area.
On August 27, 2014, the applicant appeared before the Planning Board for review and approval
of the Community Impact Study and the Preliminary Site Plan Review for the site. After much
discussion, the Planning Board moved to adjourn the Preliminary Site Plan Review to the next
meeting to allow the applicant to revise the plans to resolve some of the issues raised by the
Planning Board. However, the Planning Board voted that night to accept the Community
Impact Study for the site with the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide a drainage plan for the proposed new development;
2. The applicant work with the Engineering Dept to relocate the existing storm sewer on
site and provide an easement for same to the City, and mark these on the site plan;
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 2 of 25
3. Applicant remove noted contaminants from the site soils and drainage systems
on
site to meet Generic Cleanup Criteria;
4. The applicant provide details regarding the proposed separation and collection
of
recycled materials on site;
5. Applicant resolve fire safety and access issues with the Fire Dept; and
6. Applicant resolve all issues raised by City Departments and the City's traffic
consultant.
On September 24, 2014, the applicant returned before the board with revised plans to address
some of the concerns raised by the Planning Board at the previous meeting. After further
discussion, the Planning Board voted to approve the Preliminary Site Plan Review with the
following conditions:
(1) Planning Board approves the adjustment of the front setback to 4 ft.;
(2) The applicant shift the first floor parking back 10 ft. from the front façade of the
building or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, or a favorable
interpretation by the building official;
(3) Applicant provide specification sheets for mechanical equipment and
screening, all lighting and a photometric plan for Final Site Plan and Design Review;
(4) Applicant provide a detailed landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with all
landscape requirements;
(5) Applicant add two additional light fixtures in the ROW along Cole;
(6) Applicant add three evergreen trees or obtain a variance from the Board of
Zoning Appeals;
(7) Applicant address the first floor glazing requirements at Final Site Plan and Design
Review;
(8) Compliance with City Department requests; and
(9) Lots must be combined.
On November 11, 2014, the applicant appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals to overturn the
interpretation of the Building Official that ruled no parking was permitted within 10’ of the front
façade of a building, regardless of whether it was on the frontage line or not. In the
alternative, the applicant requested a variance to allow parking within 10’ of the front façade.
After much discussion, the Board of Zoning Appeals denied the applicant’s request to overturn
the interpretation, and denied the applicant’s variance request to allow parking on the first floor
of the building within 10’ of the front façade.
1.0
Land Use and Zoning
1.1
1.2
Existing Land Use – The existing space at 2195 E. Lincoln is currently vacant.
There is a former Birmingham Public Schools bus station, garage, and repair
shop on this lot that is no longer in use. The existing building at 2295 E.
Lincoln contains a mix of commercial and industrial uses. Land uses
surrounding the site are mixed use (industrial, commercial and recreational).
Zoning – The property is currently zoned MX, Mixed Use and is located in the
Rail District. The existing use and surrounding uses appear to conform to
the permitted uses of each Zoning District.
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 3 of 25
1.3
Summary of Adjacent Land Use and Zoning - The following chart summarizes
existing land use and zoning adjacent to and/or in the vicinity of the subject
site.
North
Existing Land Commercial/
Use
Retail
Industrial
Existing
Zoning
District
2.0
South
East
Recreational
Commercial
/ (Park,
Ice Retail/
Arena, Tennis Industrial
Bubble)
MX
Mixed-Use
PP
Public MX
Property
Mixed-Use
West
/ Commercial
MX
Mixed-Use
Setback and Height Requirements
The proposed development appears to meet all of the required height, placement and setback
requirements. The applicant has now removed all parking from within 10’ of the front façade of
the building to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
3.0
Screening and Landscaping
3.1 Dumpster Screening – The applicant is proposing to locate all trash storage in a
designated room within the building with access from the first floor enclosed parking
lot.
3.2 Parking Lot Screening – A large portion of the required parking is proposed to be
located within the first floor of the building, setback a minimum of 10’ from the front
façade. All parking facilities must be screened in accordance with Article 4, section
4.49 of the Zoning Ordinance. All interior parking will be fully screened from view
from the sidewalk by an interior corridor, lobby space, and electrical and mechanical
rooms. There will also be 24 paved parking spaces located in a surface lot behind
the building. This additional parking in the back of the building is screened by the
building and is not visible from the street.
3.3 Mechanical Equipment Screening – A DTE electrical transformer is proposed to be
located at the rear of the property. This will be screened with Spruce trees and
Arborvitae shrubs. The applicant previously noted that all rooftop mechanical units
will be screened to full height with a metal wall system consistent with the building
design. The applicant has now provided specification sheets on the 36 rooftop
compressor units, which will be 33” in height, and mounted on 10” high rails. A
metal screening system is proposed around both of the clusters of mechanical
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 4 of 25
equipment on the roof. The screening around the cluster that also contains the
elevator shaft and a 2.7 ton unit (49” in height) is 52” in height, and the other
cluster of units is screened by metal panels 45” in height. The 52” high screening
brings the total height of the building to 54.3’ in height, which is below the
maximum height of 55’ (including mechanical equipment).
3.4 Landscaping – In accordance with Article 4, section 4.20 LA-01(F) of the Zoning
Ordinance, parking lots greater than 7,500 sq. ft. must meet landscaping
requirements. There shall be interior landscaping areas that total not less than 5%
of the total parking lot interior area. Each planting area shall be at least 150 sq. ft.
in size and not less than 8 ft. in any single dimension. There shall be one canopy
tree for every 150 sq. ft., or fraction thereof, of interior planting area required. The
property is proposing 10,620.22 S.F. of paved area multiplied by 5%, thus requiring
512 S.F. of parking lot landscaping. Based on this size, 3 canopy trees are required.
The applicant is proposing 762.4 S.F. of landscaping, 3 “Chancellor Linden” canopy
trees, landscaping is spaced to break up the pavement in the parking area, and all
landscape islands are at least 150 sq.ft. in size, thus meeting the parking lot
landscaping requirements.
Article 04 section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance requires at least 1 street tree for
each 40 linear feet of frontage. As the property (as combined and including 2195
and 2295 E. Lincoln) has 380.57’ of street frontage along E. Lincoln, 10 street trees
are required. As the property also has 159.5’ of street frontage along Commerce
Street, 4 street trees are required on Commerce as well. The applicant has
proposed 6 “Bowhall Red Maple” street trees in addition to 3 existing Maple trees
along E. Lincoln, and one “Chancellor Linden” tree. One new “Chancellor Linden”
tree is proposed on Commerce Street in addition to 3 existing trees (2 Honey Locust
and 1 Spruce tree). The applicant has no proposed street trees along Cole Street.
The applicant will seek a waiver on the requirement for trees along Cole
Avenue stating insufficient area to plant and overhead utility lines running
along the frontage. The street tree requirement has been met if a waiver
is granted from the City Arborist for the area on Cole Street.
In addition to the proposed landscaping within the parking lots and streetscape
trees, the applicant has proposed extensive landscaping around the perimeter of the
property. The applicant has proposed 4 “Bowhall Red Maple” trees and 3 Black Hills
Spruce trees along the west side of the property, 3 “Warpelsdon Sweet Gum” trees
and 10 Koreanspice Viburnum shrubs along the back property line. The applicant is
also proposing 14 Black Hill Spruce trees in the lawn area north of the outdoor
parking king are in the vicinity of the DTE transformer. The applicant has also
proposed shrubs along the perimeter of the property which include; 26 “White Gem
Boxwood” shrubs, and 57 “Green Luster Holly” shrubs. Lastly, the applicant has
proposed the following groundcover/perennials landscaping; 55 “Baltic English Ivy”,
23 “Stella D’Oro Daylilly”, 34 “Halcyon Hostas”, and 19 “Northwind Switchgrass”.
However, Article 4, Section 4.20 LA-01(E) requires 1 deciduous tree and 1 evergreen
tree for every two residential units. All deciduous trees are 3” in caliper as required
and all evergreen trees will be 8’ tall at planting as required. As the applicant is
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 5 of 25
proposing a total of 33 units, a total of 17 deciduous and 17 evergreen trees are
required on site. The applicant is proposing a total of 18 deciduous trees and 17
evergreen trees.
3.5 Streetscape - The applicant is proposing the addition of 7 street lights along E.
Lincoln (although 9 are shown on the photometric plan), 2 along Cole, and 4 along
Commerce in front of the building, for a total of 13 (or 15 according to the
photometric plan) street lights proposed. However, as the property at 2159 E.
Lincoln is proposed to be combined with 2295 E. Lincoln, a total of 19
street lights are required, which provides spacing of approximately 40’
apart. Thus, 4 more street lights are required along E. Lincoln, 1 more on
Commerce and 1 more on Cole Street (according to the site plan). The
applicant is required to add the additional pedestrian scale street lights
and to accurately shown all lighting on both the site plan and the
photometric plan. The Engineering Department will be required to approve the
placement of all street lighting. The applicant is also proposing the addition of 2
new benches and trash receptacles along E. Lincoln in front of the new building, and
one new bench and trash receptacle on E. Lincoln in front of the existing building at
2295 E. Lincoln. The Planning Board may wish to require one or more bike
racks in the public ROW as well. No are provided in the public ROW at
this time. No benches or trash receptacles are proposed along Commerce
or Cole Street. Bike racks are proposed at the northwest corner of the rear
surface parking lot.
The revised plans also now include a 33’ wide entry plaza in the ROW along E.
Lincoln adjacent to the new interior lobby to create a welcoming space and to draw
attention to the main entry of the building. Planters and bollard lighting are
proposed in this plaza area. No specification sheets have been provided at
this time for the planters shown on the elevation drawings. The applicant
must provide these, and add the planters to the site plan as they are not
currently shown.
4.0
Parking, Loading and Circulation
4.1
Parking – In accordance with Article 4, section 4.34 of the Zoning Ordinance, this
development is required to have 41 total parking spaces (33 three or more room
units x 1.25 parking spaces per unit). The applicant is proposing 57 total parking
spaces located on the first floor of the building and in the paved section located
behind the building. The applicant has also noted that there will be 13 additional
on street parking spaces are available on E. Lincoln and Commerce. Thus, the
applicant has met the requirements for parking, and has included an additional
16 parking spaces for residents and guests. The applicant has also provided bike
racks for bicycle parking located at the northwest corner of the property for
residents and guests.
Article 4, section 4.48 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that off-street parking
contained in the first story shall not be permitted within 10’ of any building
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 6 of 25
façade on a frontage line or between the building façade and the frontage line.
The applicant is proposing parking to be contained within the first story of the
building, but has now redesigned the building to create usable space within 10’
of the front building façade, and moved the parking behind the 10’ mark.
All parking spaces contained within the building meet the minimum size
requirement of 180 sq.ft., however the spaces located in the outdoor surface lot
behind the building are only 162 sq.ft. in size. Thus, the applicant will be
required to increase the size of the parking spaces or obtain a variance
from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
4.2
4.3
4.4
5.0
Loading – Due to the live/work nature of this building there are no specific
loading requirements.
Vehicular Circulation and Access –The applicant is proposing a driveway and
drive approach on the east side of the building to access both a portion of the
enclosed first floor parking area and the rear surface parking lot. The 23’ wide
drive aisle in the enclosed parking area and the 22’ wide drive aisle in the rear
outdoor parking area are of sufficient size for maneuvering vehicles. A second
curb cut has also been added towards the west end of the building to provide
access to a second covered parking area on the first floor. This new design for
the first floor splits the interior parking into two distinct areas to accommodate a
more substantial interior lobby that is accessible from both the front and rear of
the building as requested by the Planning Board.
Pedestrian Circulation and Access – The applicant proposes to repave the
existing 5’ sidewalk along Lincoln. There will be a paved walk that leads to the
main entrance of the building facing E. Lincoln. The lobby has now been
reconfigured so that it is accessible from both the front sidewalk and the rear
entrance adjacent to the surface parking lot, as requested by the Planning
Board. As noted above, there is a large pedestrian plaza located in front of the
main entry on the street side to enhance the prominence of the pedestrian entry.
A secondary pedestrian entry is located east of the main entry, leading into the
southern stair tower. The proposed site plan still does not provide pedestrian
circulation throughout the parking area or along the east side of the building
adjacent to the new paved drive to provide a connection to the public sidewalk
on E. Lincoln. The Planning Board may wish to require a pedestrian
sidewalk along the entry drive from the public sidewalk and
throughout the rear parking lot.
Lighting
At this time, the applicant has provided a photometric plan and specification sheets for
the street lights, parking lot lighting, and bollard lighting for the entry plaza. However,
as noted above, the photometric plan shows two additional street lights that
are not shown on the site plan. These plans must be corrected to show the
required 19 street lights. The applicant has submitted a specification sheet on the
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 7 of 25
street lights indicating that they are Munich Series fixtures by Antique Street Lamps,
Model EM25RT GC5G. These fixtures are proposed to be installed on posts 13’
in height, and contain 58 watt LED lamps. The pole design and color has not
been specified. These fixtures do not match the required streetscape
standards for lighting in the Rail District, and thus the applicant must switch
the fixture to the approved gooseneck pedestrian street lights already
installed along E. Lincoln.
The applicant is proposing 3 D-Series LED Area Luminaire by Lithonia Lighting to light
the outdoor surface parking lot. The proposed fixtures are cut off style and will contain
91 watt LED lamps. These fixtures are proposed to match four existing fixtures on the
property to the north of 2159 E. Lincoln. No details have been provided on the
pole design, color or height to determine if the height is compliant with the
lighting standards in the Rail District.
Four 8” round bollard lights are proposed in the ROW to frame the new entry plaza to
the building. These are D-Series LED Bollards by Lithonia Lighting, and are 42” in
height with 28 watt LED lamps. These fixtures do not provide any up-lighting and have
a dark bronze finish.
The applicant has not provided specification sheets for the proposed building lighting for
the east elevation of the new building, or for existing building lighting on 2295 E.
Lincoln Street, although this existing lighting is noted on the photometric plan. The
applicant will be required to provide specification sheets for all on site
lighting to ensure that all fixtures are compliant with the lighting standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
As stated above, the applicant has now submitted a photometric plan for the entire site.
However, the photometric plan clearly shows light levels along the property
lines in excess of 1.5 fc, which does not meet the maximum illuminance level
in Article 4, section 4.21(E) of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the
photometric plan (sheet A-002.2) does not label the parking lot areas on the
plan, whereas sheet A-002.4 provides a chart showing the max/min ratio for
parking lots A – D, and two of these have max/min ratios that exceed the
maximum 20:1 ratio permitted in accordance with Article 4, section 4.21 (F)
of the Zoning Ordinance.
6.0
Departmental Reports
6.1
Engineering Division – The Engineering Division has provided the following
comments:
1.
As noted on sheet SP2, an existing 18” sanitary (not storm) sewer runs
through the site, flowing south. The sanitary sewer flows at minimal slope
now. The plan proposes rerouting the sewer around the east side of the
proposed building. Typically, this would be allowed. However, extending
the length of pipe required to get through the site requires flattening the
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 8 of 25
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
slope of the pipe to a point of 0.08%. As proposed, a 21” sewer installed
this flat would be in violation of public sewer standards for the state of
Michigan. This slope (0.08%) is allowed only if the pipe size is increased to
a minimum of 24” dia. Note that the City (as well as the County Water
Resources Commissioner and the MI Dept. of Environmental Quality)
cannot approve a public sewer system modification that does not meet
these standards. The applicant must indicate on revised plans that the
sewer will be rerouted using 24” dia. pipe.
The existing sewer is in an easement which will have to be abandoned.
The property owner shall grant to the City a new easement over the new
rerouted sewer to ensure the City legal access into the future.
The plan proposes a landscaping plaza in the right-of-way. While we are
amenable to certain designs that would provide for a paved area here, the
current design presents the following problems:
The street light spacing has been disrupted. The 40 ft. spacing specified is
important to provide consistent light levels on both the street and the
sidewalk. As designed, the front door plaza area would be darker than the
rest of the area, particularly as the trees mature. The design must provide
a consistent street light spacing.
Small brick column planter boxes are shown in this area on the elevation,
but they are not located on any plan view. Further, unlabeled small circles
exist between the two proposed trees in this plaza area. It is unclear what
the intent is, but the brick columns, if desired, need to be installed on
private property. The applicant is encouraged to discuss other ideas
directly with the Engineering Dept. prior to redesigning this plaza area.
A portion of the parking lot and storm sewer is depicted as being built on
the neighboring property. Proof of an easement for ingress/egress and for
maintenance of the storm sewer shall be obtained from the adjacent
property owner.
The following permits will be required from the Engineering Department for
this project:
A.
B.
Right-of-Way Permit (for excavations in the right-of-way).
Sidewalk/Drive Approach Permit (for all pavement installed in the
right-of-way).
A Storm Water Runoff Permit will not be required for this site. If you have any
questions, feel free to contact me.
6.2
The Department of Public Services - The DPS recommends irrigation to be
installed for lawn and bed areas including in tree wells for all street trees.
Benches/trash receptacles/bike racks to be purchased and installed by developer
per City specifications.
6.3
Fire Department – The Fire Department will provide comments prior to the
Planning Board meeting on January 28, 2015.
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 9 of 25
6.4
Police Department – The Police Department has no concerns with the proposed
development.
6.5
Building Division – The Building Division has provided their standard comments
as well as the following:
1. Note 7, on sheet A-002 addresses barricades and temporary walkways
must be in place prior to construction. The systems you’re proposing
must be approved by both the engineering and building departments
before a building permit is issued. Please address both the private and
public properties your project abuts per chapter 33.
2. Two exits are required from the east covered parking area.
3. Exit discharge from the interior stair must comply with section 1027.1
4. The walkway to the electrical and water meter rooms must be 36 inches
wide.
7.0
Conformance with the Eton Road Corridor Plan
The subject site is located within the boundaries of the Eton Road Corridor Plan. The
vision of the Eton Road Corridor Plan (“ERCP”) was to encourage high density, multifamily residential uses mixed with new, small scale commercial uses in a scale that is
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood to create an eclectic, mixed use district.
The ERCP specifically encourages development that is visually compatible with the
adjacent neighborhoods, use quality architecture and provide streetscape enhancement
to improve pedestrian circulation within the district and through the district.
The ERCP also provides design guidelines to ensure that this vision is realized, including
the following:
• moving buildings close to the road with little or no front parking;
• moving parking to the rear of buildings and providing screening;
• providing entrance features to buildings, using high quality building materials
and pedestrian-scaled building details;
• encouraging landscaping between buildings and the road and the conversion of
all interior area between buildings into landscaped open space; and
• encouraging lighting to accent architecture and improve the pedestrian
environment while maintaining light levels that are compatible with
neighborhood ambient light levels.
The building proposed by the applicant at this time includes thirty-three live/work loft
units, and is compatible in scale and height with adjacent buildings and the scale and
massing recommended in the ERCP. The proposed location and footprint of the building
are as recommended on the Future Land Use Plan, and parking is provided at the rear
of the building only. The applicant is proposing to use masonry blocks in two colors and
textures, as well as metal paneling on portions of the upper levels. A front walk and
pedestrian plaza is proposed from the sidewalk to the main front entry for the building,
and a secondary pedestrian entry is also located with direct access to the public
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 10 of 25
sidewalk. Landscaping is proposed between the building and the right-of-way, on either
end of the building, within the surface parking lot and at the rear of the property.
Lighting provided will be minimal and compatible with neighborhood ambient light
levels.
8.0
Design Review
At this time, the applicant is proposing to utilize the following materials for the new
live/work building:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Split face load bearing masonry block on the first level;
Burnished block veneer in two colors (one flat texture in field color, one rockfaced texture in accent darker grey) on the upper levels;
Cement board accent panels on upper floors painted dark brown (no color
specification provided);
Grey metal coping around the eave line/parapet wall;
Aluminum windows with black frames and a light tint (no tint sample
provided);
Painted metal canopies at the entrance on E. Lincoln (no color specification
provided);
Stainless steel individually cut letters surface mounted on the south elevation
reading “DISTRICT Live/Work” (no material sample provided); and
Ornamental metal rails at windows (no material sample or color provided).
The applicant will be required to provide all material samples and color
specifications for the Planning Board on January 28, 2015.
The applicant has added new storefront display windows, a wider lobby with windows,
and a glass door for the front entrance to the interior parking area at the west end of
the building. The elevation drawings state that 70% glazing is proposed for the first
floor along E. Lincoln, with 27% glazing on the upper floors, thus meeting the window
standards contained in Article 4, Section 4.83 WN-01.
The proposed building design matches the industrial style of existing industrial and
mixed use buildings within the Rail District, and the proposed scale and massing is
consistent with other new buildings in the area, and the objectives of the ERCP. The
use of masonry and metal accents blends in well with surrounding buildings. Overall,
the proposed design of Building A is compatible with the vision for the MX district
contained in the Eton Road Corridor Plan.
9.0
Approval Criteria
In accordance with Article 7, section 7.27 of the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed plans
for development must meet the following conditions:
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 11 of 25
(1) The location, size and height of the building, walls and fences shall be such that
there is adequate landscaped open space so as to provide light, air and access to
the persons occupying the structure.
(2) The location, size and height of the building, walls and fences shall be such that
there will be no interference with adequate light, air and access to adjacent lands
and buildings.
(3) The location, size and height of the building, walls and fences shall be such that
they will not hinder the reasonable development of adjoining property not diminish
the value thereof.
(4) The site plan, and its relation to streets, driveways and sidewalks, shall be such as
to not interfere with or be hazardous to vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
(5) The proposed development will be compatible with other uses and buildings in the
neighborhood and will not be contrary to the spirit and purpose of this chapter.
(6) The location, shape and size of required landscaped open space is such as to
provide adequate open space for the benefit of the inhabitants of the building and
the surrounding neighborhood.
10.0
Recommendation
Based on a review of the site plan revisions submitted, the Planning Division
recommends that the Planning Board APPROVE the Final Site Plan for 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln subject to the following conditions:
(1) Obtain a waiver for street trees along Cole from the City Arborist:
(2) Add 4 additional light fixtures in the ROW along E. Lincoln, 1 on Commerce
and 1 on Cole Street and switch all street lights to the Rail District
streetscape standard fixture;
(3) Provide specification sheets for proposed planters and all light fixtures and
provide all requested material samples and color details;
(4) Increase the size of all parking spaces to 180 sq.ft. or obtain a variance from
the Board of Zoning Appeals;
(5) Add a pedestrian sidewalk along the entry drive from the public sidewalk to
the rear lobby entrance;
(6) Reduce the light levels at all property lines to less than 1.5 fc;
(7) Reduce the max/min ratio for parking lot lighting to 20:1 for the new parking
lot to be located on 2195 E. Lincoln; and
(8) Comply with City Department requests.
11.0
Sample Motion Language
(1) Motion to APPROVE the Final Site Plan for 2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln subject to
the Obtain a waiver for street trees along Cole from the City Arborist:
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 12 of 25
(2) Add 4 additional light fixtures in the ROW along E. Lincoln, 1 on Commerce
and 1 on Cole Street and switch all street lights to the Rail District
streetscape standard fixture;
(3) Provide specification sheets for proposed planters and all light fixtures and
provide all requested material samples and color details;
(4) Increase the size of all parking spaces to 180 sq.ft. or obtain a variance from
the Board of Zoning Appeals;
(5) Add a pedestrian sidewalk along the entry drive from the public sidewalk to
the rear lobby entrance;
(6) Reduce the light levels at all property lines to less than 1.5 fc;
(7) Reduce the max/min ratio for parking lot lighting to 20:1 for the new parking
lot to be located on 2195 E. Lincoln; and
(8) Comply with City Department requests.
OR
Motion to POSTPONE the Final Site Plan for 2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln, pending receipt of
the following:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________
OR
Motion
to
DENY
the
Final
Site
Plan
for
2159
&
2295
E.
Lincoln.
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 13 of 25
Planning Board Minutes
August 27, 2014
COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDY ("CIS") REVIEW
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW
2159 and 2295 E. Lincoln
The District Live/Work Apartments
New construction of a four-story mixed-use live/work building with parking
CIS Review
Ms. Ecker reported the subject sites, 2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street, are currently two parcels.
The parcel at 2295 E. Lincoln Street contains an existing two story commercial/industrial
building and associated parking. No changes are proposed to this building or parking area. The
parcel at 2159 E. Lincoln contains a vacant building and parking area that was once occupied
by a Birmingham Public Schools bus garage and repair shop.
The applicant has advised that they intend to combine both parcels into one parcel.
The combined site has a total land area of 2.07 acres and is located on the north side
of Lincoln east of Eton Rd.
Ms. Ecker advised that at this time, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing former
bus repair structure and surrounding pavement and fencing to construct a new four-story
live/work mixed-use building. A majority of the first floor is proposed to contain on-site parking
while the second, third and fourth floors will contain 36 live/work units. Additional parking is
also provided in a surface lot to the north of the building and on the street, giving the building
a total of 68,722 gross sq. ft. Thus, the applicant was required to prepare a CIS in accordance
with Article 7, section 7.27(E) of the Zoning Ordinance as they are proposing one new building
containing more than 20,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area.
No review by the City's traffic consultant has been received as yet. However, no objections are
anticipated.
The applicant is required to meet certain standards with regards to environmental issues on the
site and they would have to remediate them in accordance with Federal law. They can get
some of their money back for future tax liabilities if they come through the Brownfield
Redevelopment Authority.
There was no discussion on the CIS from members of the public at 8:47 p.m.
Motion by Mr. DeWeese
Seconded by Mr. Koseck to accept the CIS as provided by the applicant for the
proposed development at 2159 and 2295 E. Lincoln, The District Live/Work
Apartments, subject to the following conditions:
1.
The applicant provide a drainage plan for the proposed new development;
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 14 of 25
2.
The applicant work with the Engineering Dept to relocate the existing storm
sewer on site and provide an easement for same to the City, and mark these
on the site plan;
3.
Applicant remove noted contaminants from the site soils and drainage
systems on site to meet Generic Cleanup Criteria;
4.
The applicant provide details regarding the proposed separation and
collection of recycled materials on site;
5.
Applicant resolve fire safety and access issues with the Fire Dept; and
6.
Applicant resolve all issues raised by City Departments and the City's traffic
consultant.
Motion carried, 6-0.
VOICE VOTE
Yeas: DeWeese, Koseck, Boyle, Lazar, Whipple-Boyce, Williams
Nays: None
Absent: Clein
Preliminary Site Plan Review
Ms. Ecker explained that along the E. Lincoln frontage, the building is required to be on or
within 3 ft. of the frontage line. The proposed building is set back 5 ft. In accordance with
Article 4, Section 4.76, SS-08, the Planning Board may adjust this requirement. If the
Planning Board does not approve an adjustm ent, the applicant w ill be required to
obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA").
In accordance with Article 4, Section 4.52 PK-08, any off-street parking contained in the first
story shall not be permitted within 10 ft. of any building façade on a frontage line or
between the building façade and the frontage line. Thus, the applicant w ill be required to
shift the first floor parking back 10 ft. from the front façade of the building or
obtain a variance from the BZA.
The applicant w ill be required to add one additional street tree along E. Lincoln and
tw o additional street trees along Com m erce St. to m eet the street tree
requirem ents or obtain a variance from the BZA.
The applicant has proposed extensive landscaping around the perimeter of the property. As
the applicant is proposing a total of 36 units, a total of 18 deciduous and 18 evergreen trees
are required on-site. The applicant is proposing a total of 22 deciduous trees and no
evergreen trees. The applicant w ill be required to add the required evergreen trees
or obtain a variance from the BZA.
Ms. Ecker observed there is not a clear and defined entrance on the front facade for the public
to come in if they don't live there. She has discussed with the applicant the possibility of
creating a lobby on the E. Lincoln frontage that would be an inviting and functional space for
people to use. Also, there are no clearly defined pedestrian pathways along the driveway or
through the parking lot to the front door. That is something the applicant will need to address.
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 15 of 25
Design Review
At this time, the applicant is proposing to utilize the following materials for the new live/work
building:
• Split face load bearing masonry block on the first level;
• Burnished block veneer in two colors on the upper levels;
• Cement board accent panels on upper floors;
• Metal coping around the eave line/parapet wall;
• Aluminum windows with a tint;
• Painted metal canopies at the entrance on E. Lincoln; and
• Ornamental metal rails at windows.
It was noted that windows must be clear or lightly tinted only. Also the minimum glazing
requirement for the first floor is 70% and for the upper floors it is 50%.
Mr. Tom Phillips with Hobbs and Black Architects was present with the property owners and the
civil engineer. He noted upper level retail uses are not unusual in the City. The intent is to
lease the units as live/work to professionals who will live and entertain clients on upper floors.
They are willing to work on refining the entry from the street.
Mr. Koseck said the project is great but it is fundamentally flawed from many standpoints. It
doesn't comply with the spirit and intent of the ordinance relative to this district and it will not
get his vote. There is a reason 70% glazing is required on the first floor. There is no sales
office or lobby for the residential. There should be a relationship between the building and the
occupants and the visitors and how they interact with the City and the street.
Mr. Ron Hughes, Co-owner of the building, said he respectfully disagrees. They have spent an
enormous amount of time to meet all ordinance requirements. Also, he thinks they have
definitely met the spirit of the ordinance. The main entrance is in the rear where people park.
They have minimized the impact of looking at cars on the site. The live/work units are a
destination and people will know where the entry is in the back. If they don't know they can
still go to the front and be buzzed into the building.
Mr. Don Bailey, the other co-owner, said the chances of visitors parking on the street and going
into the building from the front are pretty slim. From a marketing standpoint the entrance
being next to parking in the back is perfect. Mr. DeWeese remarked that as a pedestrian,
access from the street is very difficult. The whole length of the building is dead. He doesn't
see anything that makes it inviting or pedestrian friendly. If the 70% glazing is incorporated,
all he sees is a car-oriented building on stilts. Everything that has been approved in the MX
District is pedestrian friendly and accessed from the street.
Mr. Koseck did not have an issue with the concept of ground floor parking. Chairman Boyle
added the challenge is how the applicant addresses the building. Everyone is forced around to
the back. When one looks at the building from the street there is no obvious entrance. The
board is asking the applicant to consider improving and strengthening the entrance on the
street. That is part of the intent of the plan for Lincoln and the entire district. Mr. Koseck
added that everything this board has done is about interaction between the street, the building
and the visitor. However, this building is a bunker at the first floor.
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 16 of 25
Mr. Bailey indicated they view this as a destination building, more like an office building than
retail. Ms. Whipple-Boyce said that something is needed on the front of this building that
relates to pedestrians. That goes along with the 200 ft. wall that screens the parking. There is
no experience for anyone walking down Lincoln.
Ms. Lazar observed the board is really asking for a pretend front entrance because the most
practical way to enter that building will be from the back. Mr. Williams thought that modest
improvements can be made to the front of the building at not significant expense and not
detrimental to what the applicant is trying to achieve.
There was no one from the public who wished to comment at 9:57 p.m.
Motion by Mr. DeWeese
Seconded by Mr. Williams to postpone the Preliminary Site Plan Review for 2159
and 2295 E. Lincoln, The District Live/Work Apartments, to September 10, 2014.
Motion carried, 6-0.
VOICE VOTE
Yeas: DeWeese, Williams, Boyle, Koseck, Lazar, Whipple-Boyce
Nays: None
Absent: Clein
Board members required that details of the second parcel and how the entire site relates to
existing developments to the north be incorporated into the applicant's plans when they return.
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 17 of 25
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW
2159 and 2295 E. Lincoln (postponed by the applicant to the meeting of September 24,
2014)
The District Live/Work Apartments
New construction of a four-story mixed-use live/work building with parking
Ms. Ecker advised that the subject sites, 2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln, are currently two parcels. The
parcel at 2295 E. Lincoln contains an existing two-story commercial/industrial building and
associated parking. No changes are proposed to this building or parking area. The parcel at
2159 E. Lincoln contains a vacant building and parking area. The applicant has advised that
they intend to combine both parcels into one parcel. The combined site has a total land area of
2.07 acres and is located on the north side of Lincoln east of Eton Rd.
At this time, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing former bus repair
structure and surrounding pavement and fencing to construct a four-story live/work
mixed-use building. A majority of the enclosed first floor is proposed to contain on-site
parking while the second, third and fourth floor will contain 36 live/work units. Additional
parking is also provided in a surface lot to the north of the building and on-street. The
applicant was required to prepare a Community Impact Study in accordance with Article 7,
section 7.27(E) of the Zoning Ordinance as they are proposing one new building containing
more than 20,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The CIS was accepted on August 27, 2014 by the
Planning Board with several conditions. The City’s traffic consultant has weighed in and
indicated his agreement with everything in the Traffic Study.
Ms. Ecker advised that along the E. Lincoln frontage, the building is required to be on or within
3 ft. of the frontage line. The proposed building is set back 4 ft. In accordance with Article 4,
Section 4.76, SS-08, the Planning Board may adjust this requirement. If the Planning Board
does not approve an adjustm ent, the applicant w ill be required to obtain a variance
from the Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”). In addition, in accordance with Article 4,
Section 4.52 PK-08, any off-street parking contained in the first story shall not be permitted
within 10 ft. of any building façade on a frontage line or between the building façade and the
frontage line. Thus, the applicant w ill be required to shift the first floor parking back
10 ft. from the front façade of the building or obtain a variance from the BZA. The
applicant has filed a request for an Interpretation from the building official on this issue and is
awaiting a ruling on that.
The revised plans now include a fully functional interior lobby that is accessible from both the
front and rear of the building as requested by the Planning Board in August. This lobby includes
an elevator, a staircase, a restroom, an office, a janitor’s supply
closet and the mail pickup area. No pedestrian walkways are proposed throughout or along the
edges of the parking lot. Also as discussed at the August Planning Board meeting, the applicant
will be required to ensure safe pedestrian circulation throughout the parking area at Final Site
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 18 of 25
Plan and Design Review. One other thing that the board asked for was more emphasis on the
signage, so a new sign element has been proposed next to the front lobby.
Mr. Williams thought the lobby and signage are significantly improved from the previous plans.
Mr. Thom Phillips, Hobbs & Black Architects, was present with the owners, Mr. Ron Hughes, Mr.
Don Bailey, and Mr. Sean Havera. Mr. Phillips noted there was a great effort to address the
liveliness and life that the building projects onto the street. The parking layout is a result of
losing three covered parking spaces in order to make the lobby more usable for pedestrians. If
the board desires to add a sidewalk to access the parking lot they could do that, but they view
the plan as providing sufficient access. The display windows along the frontage will potentially
feature art work and/or interior images of the rental units. The windows will be 24 in. deep.
Chutes next to the elevator are planned for disposal of trash. Their plan for the second parcel is
not to change anything.
Mr. Havera said the original intent was to have 39 parking spaces which allowed for each unit
to have at least one covered space. So, from a leasability standpoint having 36 spaces is a vital
component to being able to market the building.
Mr. Williams thought the main lobby has been changed favorably and is consistent with what
the board’s concerns were at the last meeting. Discussion concerned the reason for the striped
areas shown at the rear of the parking lot. Mr. Havera indicated they accommodate the turning
radiuses for emergency vehicles but they plan to consult with the city engineer in this regard.
There was no discussion from the public at 8:10 p.m.
Motion by Mr. DeWeese
Seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the Preliminary Site Plan for 2159 and 2295 E.
Lincoln subject to the following conditions:
(1) Planning Board approves the adjustment of the front setback to 4 ft.;
(2) The applicant shift the first floor parking back 10 ft. from the front façade of the
building or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, or a favorable
interpretation by the building official;
(3) Applicant provide specification sheets for mechanical equipment and
screening, all lighting and a photometric plan for Final Site Plan and Design Review;
(4) Applicant provide a detailed landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with all
landscape requirements;
(5) Applicant add two additional light fixtures in the ROW along Cole;
(6) Applicant add three evergreen trees or obtain a variance from the Board of
Zoning Appeals;
(7) Applicant address the first floor glazing requirements at Final Site Plan and
Design Review; and
(8) Compliance with City Department requests; and
(9) Lots must be combined.
Mr. Koseck thought this is a great building for that district.
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 19 of 25
There were no final comments from the public at 8:14 p.m.
Mr. Havera noted that lot combination is typically a requirement of the Final Site Plan and is
usually tied to the final Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Ecker clarified the motion requires the
lots to be combined but it doesn’t say when.
Motion carried, 5-0.
VOICE VOTE
Yeas: DeWeese, Williams, Clein, Koseck, Lazar
Nays: None
Absent: Whipple-Boyce
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 20 of 25
Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes
November 11, 2014
2159 E. Lincoln
Lincoln Birmingham Properties
(Appeal 14-30)
The owners of the property known as 2159 E. Lincoln request the following variance(s)
from the Zoning Ordinance to allow parking contained within the first story of the building
to be closer than 10 ft. of the front facade of the building.
A.
Chapter 126, Article 08, Section 8.10 (D), Appeals, allows for an appeal of the
building official. The applicant is requesting an appeal of an interpretation made by
the building official that when a building is allowed to be placed a distance from the
frontage line in the MX Zoning District, the parking standards in Article 04, Section
4.52 (A) 1 of the Zoning Ordinance remain applicable.
B.
Chapter 126, Article 04, Section 4.52 (A) 1, Off-Street Parking Facilities, requires offstreet parking contained in the first story shall not be permitted within 10.00 ft. of
any building facade on a frontage line. With 10.00 ft. required and 0.00 ft. proposed,
a 10.00 ft. variance is requested.
This property is zoned MX.
Mr. Johnson explained the applicant has received Preliminary Site Plan Approval for a fourstory building on this property. The front facade was moved 4 ft. back from the frontage
line. The first floor would contain enclosed parking spaces and the stories above would be
live/work residential units. The Zoning Ordinance parking standards for the MX District
require parking contained in the first story of a building not be located closer than 10 ft. to
the front facade if that facade is on a frontage line. The proposed building has parking
wholly in this area.
A condition of the Site Plan Approval was that the applicant obtain either a favorable
interpretation from the building official for the parking standards, or a variance from the
BZA. The applicant is appealing the interpretation (variance A), and in the event that the
board upholds the building official's determination, a request is made for a variance from
the parking standards (variance B).
Regarding variance A, Mr. Johnson's interpretation is that the context of the parking
standards is not related to the distance from something such as a lot line or a frontage line.
Rather, it is regarding proximity to something. The context of "on" in this section means a
building facade facing a frontage line regardless of whether or not it is set back a distance
from the frontage line.
A building approved to be placed a distance from the frontage line, 4 ft. in this case, would
still have front building facades on the frontage line and the requirements of Article 4.52
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 21 of 25
would be applicable. Mr. Johnson added that his interpretation has been reviewed with
staff, the city attorney, and the city manager and they are supportive.
It was discussed that the intent of the Ordinance is to encourage interaction with the
building and the public on the sidewalk and on the street rather as opposed to having a
blank wall that conceals parking. Also it was noted the ability of the Planning Board to
move the location of the front facade of a building is without any limitations. The Planning
Board granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval for this project because they felt it would be
an asset to the neighborhood.
Ms. Ecker noted the intent of the Eton Rd. Corridor Plan ("ERCP") was to encourage an
eclectic mix of uses and get more activity on the street. As a planner, she guessed the
intent of this provision of the Ordinance might have been:
 To activate the street; and
 To follow the urban design standard and walkability sense that the building would be
up at the street and the parking hidden in the back so that pedestrians would not
feel like they were walking through a sea of parking.
Mr. Kingsley Cotton, Attorney, introduced Mr. Ron Hughes, Lincoln Birmingham Properties;
Mr. Sean T. Havera, Sr., Project Manager; and Mr. Thom Phillips, Hobbs and Black
Architects.
Mr. Cotton noted this is a rare case where the developer wants to provide more parking
than the City requires. However, the City has objected to too much indoor parking. Mr.
Cotton went on to address the interpretation issue first. He thought the way to change an
Ordinance is not with an interpretation. He suggested the common and plain meaning of
"on" most always means having contact with. What they have is a building that is set back
4 ft. from on the frontage line and therefore they are not required to abide by the 10 ft.
buffer rule as stated in Chapter 126,
Article 04, Section 4.52 (A) 1, Off-Street Parking Facilities. Mr. Cotton could not understand
why they are being penalized 1,700 sq. ft. of interior space that could keep ten cars out of
sight, hidden by a closed facade, when "on" means on.
In response to the chairman, Mr. Cotton explained they are trying to provide one interior
parking space for each of the 36 apartments. Further, they hope to allow two interior
spaces for the three, three bedroom apartments which adds up to 39 interior spaces, and
they have 36.
Mr. Judd noted his concern is what he would consider an absurd result, which in a
sense perverts what the clear intent of the Ordinance is. Mr. Cotton countered by
saying he knows they are entitled to use the plain meaning of a word. To suggest
otherwise in this interpretation is not good legislation.
In discussion with Mr. Jones, Mr. Cotton indicated they made no attempt to change their
plans when they were before the Planning Board in August and in September. Rather, they
made the decision to appeal to the BZA.
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 22 of 25
There were no members of the audience who wanted to speak to this appeal at 8:48 p.m.
Motion by Mr. Judd
Seconded by Mr. Jones in regards to Appeal 14-30, 2159 E. Lincoln, Lincoln
Birmingham Properties. Variance A, Chapter 126, Article 08, Section 8.10 (D),
Appeals, allows for an appeal of an opinion by the building official where a
building may be placed on the frontage line in the MX District. Mr. Judd moved to
affirm the opinion of the building official.
This case is certainly one of first impression for him dealing with a newly created
zoning district, the MX District. Much has been said of the perhaps unfortunate
wording of the Ordinance and its use of one term, the word "on," which when he
first approached this issue seemed to be an extremely important term, but the
more he has read it, the more he has discussed it and heard the opinions of the
building official and very competent counsel representing the appellant
petitioner, he has come to believe that is not really what is important in this
particular case.
He feels that in looking at the history of this case the petitioner argued this
matter before the Planning Board two times, once in August and once in
September and during those appearances did not argue the indefiniteness of the
statute or the Ordinance at that time. This has since become the focal point of
the thrust of the petitioner. He feels what the board is really dealing with here is
to adopt the argument of the petitioner that places them in danger of accepting
an exploitation of a single term as the deciding element which would lead to
what has been termed by others, and also by him, an absurd result in this case
which he thinks would be extremely harsh.
Mr. Judd does not feel that the intent of the Ordinance is really in question. He
does feel that it has been well discussed. There was a paradigm involved with
the MX District which is interaction between buildings and the public and he
will stick with that. He thinks that is the paradigm. To ignore that or do
violence to that intent based upon an interpretation of one word, he thinks
would be an absurd result.
For those reasons, Mr. Judd would once again moves to affirm the decision of the
building official.
Mr. Jones clarified why he seconded the motion. The lynchpin for him has always been the
ability of the Planning Board to change where the building is located; its application then to
the Ordinance. To adopt something other than the building official's position results in the
apparent inability for other provisions of the Ordinance to apply.
Mr. Hart stated he feels "on" is on. However he knows the spirit of the Ordinance was to
encourage cross connection between the streetscape and the building itself; not to create a
wall that has no connectivity to the street. This was never brought up by the appellant
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 23 of 25
early on and it is almost like it is a crafted argument that is in his mind a strategy to allow
for the additional parking.
Mr. Judd said the intent or reasoning of the Planning Board may not be examined by the
BZA. They are a discretionary board. Mr. Cotton explained the Planning Board required a
4 ft. setback from the frontage line, and as he reads the Ordinance they do not need to
have a 10 ft. buffer. The 4 ft. requirement was to allow for doors to open on their property
and not on the sidewalk.
Chairman Lillie indicated he will support the motion for the reasons stated by Mr. Judd.
Motion carried, 6-0.
VOICE VOTE
Yeas: Judd, Jones, Hart, Hughes, Miller, Lillie
Nays: None
Absent: None
Mr. Cotton listed several reasons why he thought the board should support variance B:
 Compliance with the buffer requirement in their view unreasonably prevents the
appellant from using the property for a permitted purpose: parking;
 Compliance is burdensome because it eliminates ten interior parking places,
wastes 1,735 sq. ft. in a non-heated garage, and increases the number of cars
that will be open to public view;
 Granting the variance does substantial justice to the developer because they don't
have to figure out a use for the 10 ft. corridor. Additionally it allows inside parking
for ten additional cars and viewing parked cars is not ideal;
 Keeping more cars indoors does justice to the developer and the other property
owners;
 A unique circumstance is they can make no guess as to the civic purpose or
intent of the Ordinance requirement.
Therefore, there is adequate basis for the board to grant variance B which is to allow cars
parked up to the rear of the facade.
Mr. Johnson explained variance B. He clarified the aisle width is 22 ft. and the parking
spaces are 9 ft. in width and 18 ft. deep
Ms. Ecker said that there is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance that mandates the width of
aisles in a parking lot . She advised the applicant needs 42 parking spaces and they are
proposing 60 total spaces located on the first floor of the building and in the paved section
behind the building, and 9 available on E. Lincoln - 18 extra spaces in all. Therefore, if 10
were deleted they would still be in compliance with the Ordinance.
Mr. Cotton said the fact of the matter is it will be crowded over there. They are doing their
civic duty by paying and providing for more parking. He doesn't see the harm in allowing
them to park in the buffer space. This meets the standard for practical difficulty.
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 24 of 25
At 9:20 p.m. there was no one left in the audience that could speak to the appeal.
Motion by Mr. Judd
Seconded by Mr. Jones with respect to variance B, Chapter 126, Article 04,
Section 4.52 (A) 1, Off-Street Parking Facilities, requiring off-street parking
contained in the first story shall not be permitted within 10.00 ft. of any building
facade of a frontage line. With 10.00 ft. required and 0.00 ft. proposed, a 10.00
ft. variance is requested.
Mr. Judd moved to deny the variance. He would incorporate by reference his
comments dealing with the first part of this hearing and the other motion.
There seem to be two competing interests or concepts in play: whether granting
ten more parking spaces on-site on the first story trumps the paradigm of the
interactivity between the public and the buildings within the MX District.
He feels that strict compliance with the Ordinance would not unreasonably
prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose and would
render conformity with such restrictions not unnecessarily burdensome.
He feels that the 10 ft. exclusion from the parking has been justified by the
comments made by City personnel and also within the Ordinance itself dealing
with the MX District.
He feels that to grant the variance would not do substantial justice in this case
to the other property owners in the District or the general population. Also to
grant substantial relief to the owner would certainly not be consistent with
justice to other property owners.
The one element of practical difficulty which has been touched upon is whether
or not this issue was self-created. Since it has been well established that the
petitioner knew from the outset what the requirements were with the MX
District and not until quite lately brought up the issue that he hangs his hat
upon, Mr.
Judd feels that based upon that foreknowledge and the clear intent of the
Ordinances dealing with the MX District, this is a self-created circumstance.
He does not feel the plight is due to unique circumstances of the property. It is
a blank sheet of paper. The building certainly can be designed to comply with
these requirements. It is also noted that even with the loss of ten parking
spaces the petitioner does comply with the parking required on this particular
site.
Mr. Judd feels that to deny this would be in the spirit of the Ordinance. It also
grants substantial justice to the City and to neighboring property owners.
Therefore, he would move to deny.
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – ‘The District’ Live Work Apartments
January 22, 2015
Page 25 of 25
Mr. Miller thought this is a very nice project that does substantial justice to the entire area.
However, he cannot get around the self-created situation, especially when they have 18
extra parking spaces.
Mr. Jones agreed there is no question this is a great looking facility. He suggested the
applicant's reliance on the building official's interpretation or obtaining a variance is not
something that is this board's responsibility. He feels the board will be accurate in what it
determines.
Mr. Hart noted that 9 ft. x 18 ft. does not add up to the required 180 ft. for a parking
space. Also, the aisle width is kind of vague. He doesn't see any dimensions on the
drawings so it is hard for him to make a determination. However, he thinks there is a way
to comply with the Ordinance and still keep ten spaces.
Chairman Lillie commended the petitioner for offering to screen the property so the cars
would not be visible. However, he doesn't think that makes this property unique. They are
in no different position than anyone else in this district. Therefore, he will support the
motion.
Mr. Hughes concurred with Mr. Hart and the chairman on this second question.
Mr. Cotton indicated they tried to re-design the building but could not. The other thing is if
they can't guarantee each unit an indoor parking place it cripples their ability to do this
project. He doesn't understand why the board would defend an Ordinance that is poorly
written.
Motion carried, 5-1.
VOICE VOTE
Yeas: Judd, Jones, Hughes, Miller, Lillie
Nays: Hart
Absent: None
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4A - 2159 & 2295 E.
Lincoln - Final SP -1-23-15.doc
Zoning Compliance Summary Sheet
For Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln
Existing Site:
Zoning:
Land Use:
MX, Mixed Use
Residential, Commercial and Parking
Existing Land Use and Zoning of Adjacent Properties:
North
South
East
West
Existing
Land Use
Commercial/
Retail /
Industrial
Recreational
(Park, Ice
Arena, Tennis
Bubble)
Commercial /
Retail/
Industrial
Commercial
Existing
Zoning
District
MX
Mixed-Use
PP Public
Property
MX
Mixed-Use
MX
Mixed-Use
Land Area:
existing:
proposed:
90,271sq.ft. or 2.07 Acres
Same as existing
Minimum Lot Area:
required:
1500sq.ft. – 1 bedroom unit
2000sq.ft. – 2 bedroom unit
2500sq.ft. – 3 bedroom unit
1 bedroom unit – 4,500 (3 x 1500sq.ft.)
2 bedroom unit –60,000 (30 x 2000sq.ft)
proposed:
Total Lot Area Required: 64,500sq.ft.
Total Lot Area Proposed: 90,271sq.ft.
Minimum Floor Area:
required:
proposed:
Maximum Total
Floor Area:
required:
proposed:
400sq.ft. – efficiency unit
600sq.ft. – one bedroom
800sq.ft. – two bedroom
1000sq.ft. – three bedroom
Smallest 1 bedroom unit – 795 sq.ft.
smallest 2 bedroom unit – 950 sq.ft.
100% (90,271sq.ft.)
92% (49,824 sq.ft. + 33,230 sq.ft.- existing
building = 83,054 sq.ft.)
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – The District Live Work Apartments
January 28, 2015
Page 2 of 3
Minimum Open Space: required:
proposed:
N/A
N/A
Maximum Lot
Coverage:
required:
proposed:
N/A
N/A
Front Setback:
required:
proposed:
Min 0ft., but building must be on or within 3’ of
frontage line (Planning Board may adjust)
0 ft. – 4 ft.
Side Setbacks:
required:
proposed:
0’
232’ (to East), 15’ (to West)
Rear Setback:
required:
proposed:
10’
10’ (to North)
Max. Bldg. Height:
permitted:
MX - 45’ for flat roofs, 50’ including mechanical
& 4 Stories
45’ and four stories, total of 49.3 ft. including
rooftop mechanical and screening
proposed:
Minimum Eave Height: required:
proposed:
0’
45’
First Floor Ceiling:
12’ minimum clearance finished floor to
finished ceiling on first floor
13.5’ unfinished floor to unfinished ceiling
required:
proposed:
Front Entry:
required:
proposed:
Parking:
required:
proposed:
Principal pedestrian entrance on frontage
line, Planning Board may adjust.
The principle entrance is on the frontage line
facing Lincoln Street near the center of the
building
41 off-street spaces (33 units x 1.25/unit)
57 off-street spaces, all interior spaces are 180
sq.ft. in area, all on site outdoor spaces are
162 sq.ft. in area, an additional 13 on-street
spaces on E. Lincoln
Thus, the applicant will be required to increase the size of the outdoor surface
parking spaces or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Loading Area:
required:
proposed:
NA
NA
required:
proposed:
32” masonry screen wall
All parking is located within the building, or
screening by the building.
Screening:
Parking:
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4B - 2159 & 2295
E. Lincoln - FSP Summ - 1-23-15.docx
Final Site Plan Review
2159 & 2295 E. Lincoln Street – The District Live Work Apartments
January 28, 2015
Page 3 of 3
AC/Mech. units:
required:
proposed:
Screening to compliment the building
39 units are proposed on the roof, 33” in height
and mounted on 10” rails. Lowest screen wall
height is 43” which will fully screen all units.
Elect. Transformer: required:
proposed:
Fully screened from public view
Will be screened with Spruce and Arborvitae
trees (located at rear of parking lot)
Dumpster:
6’ high capped masonry wall with wooden gates
All trash will be stored within a designated trash
room within the building.
required:
proposed:
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2015\January 28, 2015\4B - 2159 & 2295
E. Lincoln - FSP Summ - 1-23-15.docx
D-Series
Catalog
Number
LED Bollard
Notes
Type
Hit the Tab key or mouse over the page to see all interactive elements.
Introduction
The D-Series LED Bollard is a stylish, energysaving, long-life solution designed to perform
the way a bollard should—with zero uplight. An
optical leap forward, this full cut-off luminaire
will meet the most stringent of lighting codes.
The D-Series LED Bollard’s rugged construction,
durable finish and long-lasting LEDs will provide
years of maintenance-free service.
Specifications
Diameter: 8” Round
H
(20.3 cm)
Height:
Weight
(max):
42”
(106.7 cm)
27 lbs
(12.25 kg)
D
Ordering Information
EXAMPLE: DSXB LED 16C 700 40K SYM MVOLT DDBXD
DSXB LED
Series
DSXB LED
LEDs
Drive current
Asymmetric
12C 12 LEDs1
Symmetric
16C 16 LEDs2
350
530
700
350 mA
530 mA
700 mA
Amber
450 450 mA 3,4
Color temperature
30K
40K
50K
3000K
4000K
5000K
Distribution
ASY Asymmetric 1
SYM Symmetric 2
Amber
AMBLW Amber limited
wavelength 3,4
Accessories
MVOLT 5
120 5
208 5
240 5
277
5
347 4
Control options
Shipped installed
PE
Photoelectric cell,
button type
DMG 0-10V dimming
driver (no
controls)
ELCW Emergency
battery backup 6
Other options
Finish (required)
Shipped installed
SF
Single fuse
(120, 277,
347V) 4,7
DF
Double fuse
(208, 240V) 4,7
H24
24” overall height
H30
30” overall height
H36
36” overall height
FG
Ground-fault
festoon outlet
L/AB Without anchor
bolts
DWHXD
DNAXD
White
Natural
aluminum
DDBXD
DBLXD
DDBTXD
Dark bronze
Black
Textured dark
bronze
DBLBXD Textured
black
DNATXD Textured
natural
aluminum
DWHGXD Textured
white
NOTES
Ordered and shipped separately.
MRAB U
Voltage
Anchor bolts for DSXB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 800.279.8041 • Fax: 770.918.1209 • www.lithonia.com
© 2012-2014 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Only available in the 12C, ASY version.
Only available in the 16C, SYM version.
Only available with 450 AMBLW version.
Not available with ELCW.
MVOLT driver operates on any line voltage
from 120-277V (50/60 Hz). Specify 120, 208,
240 or 277 options only when ordering with
fusing (SF, DF options), or photocontrol
(PE option).
Not available with 347V. Not available with
fusing. Not available with 450 AMBLW.
Single fuse (SF) requires 120, 277, or 347
voltage option. Double fuse (DF) requires
208 or 240 voltage option.
Performance Data
Lumen values are from photometric tests performed in accordance with IESNA LM-79-08. Data is considered to be representative of the configurations shown, within the tolerances allowed by Lighting Facts.
Actual performance may differ as a result of end-user environment and application. Actual wattage may differ by +/- 8% when operating between 120-480V +/- 10%.
Light
Engines
3000K
4000K
5000K
Limited Wavelength Amber
Drive
Current
System
Watts
Lumens
LPW
B
U
G
Lumens
LPW
B
U
G
Lumens
LPW
B
U
G
350
16
715
45
1
0
1
889
56
1
0
1
953
60
1
0
1
530
22
985
45
1
0
1
1,239
56
1
0
1
1,334
61
1
0
1
1,263
41
1
0
1
1,588
51
1
0
1
1,712
55
1
0
1
1
0
1
1,161
58
1
0
1
1,251
63
1
0
1
Asymmetric
3 Engines
(12 LEDs)
700
31
Amber 450
16
350
20
923
46
530
28
1,274
46
1
0
1
1,603
57
1
0
1
1,726
62
1
0
1
700
39
1,634
42
1
0
1
2,055
53
1
0
1
2,215
57
1
0
1
Amber 450
20
Symmetric
4 Engines
(16 LEDs)
Projected LED Lumen Maintenance
LPW
B
U
G
348
22
1
0
1
419
21
1
0
1
Electrical Load
Data references the extrapolated performance projections for the platforms noted in a
25°C ambient, based on 10,000 hours of LED testing (tested per IESNA LM-80-08 and
projected per IESNA TM-21-11).
Light Drive Current
Engines
(mA)
Operating Hours
0
25,000
50,000
100,000
Lumen Maintenance
Factor
1.00
0.98
0.97
0.95
Current (A)
System
Watts
120
208
240
277
347
16W
0.158
0.118
0.114
0.109
0.105
530
22W
0.217
0.146
0.136
0.128
0.118
700
31W
0.296
0.185
0.168
0.153
0.139
Amber 450
16W
0.161
0.120
0.115
0.110
0.106
350
20W
0.197
0.137
0.128
0.121
0.114
530
28W
0.282
0.178
0.162
0.148
0.135
700
39W
0.385
0.231
0.207
0.185
0.163
Amber 450
20W
0.199
0.139
0.130
0.123
0.116
350
To calculate LLF, use the lumen maintenance factor that corresponds to the desired number
of operating hours below. For other lumen maintenance values, contact factory.
Photometric Diagrams
Lumens
12C
16C
To see complete photometric reports or download .ies files for this product, visit Lithonia Lighting’s D-Series Bollard homepage.
0.1 fc
5
0.5 fc
3
4
3
2
1
0 -1 -2
-3 -4 -5
4
2
1.0 fc
1
3.0 fc
-1
6.0 fc
0
-2
-3
-4
-5
SYM
5
4
3
2
1
0 -1 -2
-3 -4 -5
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
ASY
Test No. LTL24368 tested in accordance with
IESNA LM-79-08.
5
LEGEND
Test No. LTL24360-2 tested in accordance with
IESNA LM-79-08.
Isofootcandle plots for the DSXB LED 700 40K. Distances are in units of mounting height (3’).
FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS
INTENDED USE
The rugged construction and maintenance-free performance of the D-Series LED
Bollard is ideal for illuminating building entryways, walking paths and pedestrian
plazas, as well as any other location requiring a low-mounting-height light source.
CONSTRUCTION
One-piece 8-inch-round extruded aluminum shaft with thick side walls for extreme
durability, and die-cast aluminum reflector and top cap. Die-cast aluminum
mounting ring allows for easy leveling even in uneven areas and full 360-degree
rotation for precise alignment during installation. Three ½” x 11” anchor bolts with
double nuts and washers and 3¾” bolt circle template ensure stability. Overall
height is 42” standard.
FINISH
Exterior parts are protected by a zinc-infused super durable TGIC thermoset
powder coat finish that provides superior resistance to corrosion and weathering
for maximum retention of gloss and luster. A tightly controlled multi-stage process
ensures a minimum 3-mil thickness for a finish that can withstand the elements
without cracking or peeling. Available in both textured and non-textured finishes.
OPTICS
Two 0% uplight optical distributions are available: symmetrical and asymmetrical.
IP66 sealed LED light engine provides smoothly graduated illumination without
uplight. Light engines are available in standard 4000K (>70 CRI) or optional 3000K
(>80 CRI) or 5000K (67 CRI). Limited-wavelength amber LEDs are also available.
ELECTRICAL
Light engines consist of high-efficacy LEDs mounted to metal-core circuit
boards to maximize heat dissipation and promote long life (L95/100,000 hours
at 700mA at 25°C). Class 2 electronic drivers are designed for an expected life
of 100,000 hours with < 1% failure rate. Electrical components are mounted on
a removable power tray.
LISTINGS
CSA certified to U.S. and Canadian standards. Light engines are IP66 rated.
Rated for -40°C minimum ambient. Cold-weather emergency battery backup
rated for -20°C minimum ambient.
DesignLights Consortium® (DLC) qualified product. Not all versions of this
product may be DLC qualified. Please check the DLC Qualified Products List at
www.designlights.org to confirm which versions are qualified.
WARRANTY
Five-year limited warranty. Complete warranty terms located at
www.acuitybrands.com/CustomerResources/Terms_and_conditions.aspx.
Note: Specifications subject to change without notice.
One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 800.279.8041 • Fax: 770.918.1209 • www.lithonia.com
© 2012-2014 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved.
DSXB-LED
Rev. 2/27/14
Catalog
Number
D-Series
Size 0
Notes
LED Area Luminaire
Type
Hit the Tab key or mouse over the page to see all interactive elements.
Introduction
Specifications
H
0.8 ft2
EPA:
The modern styling of the D-Series is striking
yet unobtrusive - making a bold, progressive
statement even as it blends seamlessly with its
environment.
The D-Series distills the benefits of the latest in LED
technology into a high performance, high efficacy,
long-life luminaire. The outstanding photometric
performance results in sites with excellent
uniformity, greater pole spacing and lower power
density. It is ideal for replacing up to 400W metal
halide with typical energy savings of 65% and
expected service life of over 100,000 hours.
(.07 m2)
W
26”
Length:
(66.0 cm)
L
13”
Width:
(33.0 cm)
7”
Height:
(17.8 cm)
Weight
(max):
16 lbs
(7.25 kg)
Ordering Information
EXAMPLE: DSX0 LED 40C 1000 40K T3M MVOLT SPA DDBXD
DSX0 LED
Series
LEDs
DSX0 LED
Drive current
Forward
optics
20C 20 LEDs
(one
engine)
40C 40 LEDs
(two
engines)
Rotated
optics1
30C 30 LEDs
(one
engine)
530 530 mA
700 700 mA
1000 1000 mA
(1 A) 2
Color temperature
30K
40K
50K
AMBPC
Distribution
Voltage
T1S
T2S
T2M
3000 K 80
CRI min.)
4000 K (70
CRI min.)
5000 K (70
CRI)
Amber
phosphor
converted 3
Type I short
Type II short
Type II
medium
T3S
Type III short
T3M Type III
medium
T4M Type IV
medium
TFTM Forward
throw
medium
T5VS Type V very
short
T5S
Type V short
T5M Type V
medium
T5W Type V wide
Mounting
MVOLT 4
120 4
208 4
240 4
277 4
347 5
480 5
Shipped included
SPA
Square pole
mounting
RPA
Round pole
mounting
WBA
Wall bracket
SPUMBA Square pole
universal
mounting
adaptor 6
RPUMBA Round pole
universal
mounting
adaptor 6
Shipped separately 7
KMA8
Mast arm
DDBXD U mounting
bracket adaptor (specify
finish)
Drilling
Top of Pole
Template #8
0.563”
1.325”
0.400”
(2 PLCS)
2.650”
DSX0 shares a unique drilling pattern with the AERIS™ family. Specify
this drilling pattern when specifying poles, per the table below.
DM19AS
DM28AS
DM49AS
DM29AS
DM39AS
DM32AS
Single unit 2 at 180° 4 at 90° *
2 at 90° *
3 at 90° *
3 at 120° **
Ordered and shipped separately.
Accessories
Example: SSA 20 4C DM19AS DDBXD
DLL127F 1.5 JU
DLL347F 1.5 CUL JU
DLL480F 1.5 CUL JU
SC U
DSX0HS 20C U
DSX0HS 30C U
DSX0HS 40C U
DSX0DDL U
PUMBA DDBXD U*
KMA8 DDBXD U
Photocell - SSL twist-lock (120-277V) 15
Photocell - SSL twist-lock (347V) 15
Photocell - SSL twist-lock (480V) 15
Shorting cap 15
House-side shield for 20 LED unit 13
House-side shield for 30 LED unit 13
House-side shield for 40 LED unit 13
Diffused drop lens (polycarbonate) 13
Square and round pole universal mounting
bracket adaptor (specify finish)
Mast arm mounting bracket adaptor
(specify finish) 7
Visit Lithonia Lighting’s POLES CENTRAL to see our wide selection of poles, accessories and educational
tools.
*Round pole top must be 3.25” O.D. minimum.
**For round pole mounting (RPA) only.
Tenon Mounting Slipfitter **
Tenon O.D. Single Unit 2 at 180°
2 at 90°
3 at 120°
3 at 90°
4 at 90°
2-3/8”
AST20-190 AST20-280 AST20-290 AST20-320 AST20-390 AST20-490
2-7/8”
AST25-190 AST25-280 AST25-290 AST25-320 AST25-390 AST25-490
4”
AST35-190 AST35-280 AST35-290 AST35-320 AST35-390 AST35-490
For more control options, visit DTL and ROAM online.
Control options
Other options
Shipped installed
PER NEMA twist-lock
receptacle only
(no controls) 8
DMG 0-10V dimming
driver (no
controls) 9
DCR Dimmable and
controllable
via ROAM® (no
controls) 10
PIR Motion sensor,
8-15’ mounting
height 11
PIRH Motion sensor,
15-30’ mounting
height 11
BL30 Bi-level switched
dimming, 30% 12
BL50 Bi-level switched
dimming, 50% 12
DDBXD
DBLXD
DNAXD
DWHXD
Dark
bronze
Black
Natural
aluminum
White
DDBTXD Textured
dark
bronze
DBLBXD Textured
black
DNATXD Textured
natural
aluminum
DWHGXD Textured
white
NOTES
1 30 LEDs (30C option) and rotated options (L90 or R90) only available together.
2 1000mA is not available with AMBPC.
3 AMBPC only available with 530mA or 700mA.
4 MVOLT driver operates on any line voltage from 120-277V (50/60 Hz). Specify 120,
208, 240 or 277 options only when ordering with fusing (SF, DF options).
5 Not available with single-board, 530 mA product (20C 530 or 30C 530). Not
available with DCR, BL30, or BL50.
6 Available as a separate combination accessory: PUMBA (finish) U.
7 Must be ordered as a separate accessory; see Accessories information. For use
with 2-3/8” mast arm (not included).
8 Photocell ordered and shipped as a separate line item from Acuity Brands
Controls. See accessories.
9 DMG option for 347v or 480v requires 1000mA.
10 Specifies a ROAM® enabled luminaire with 0-10V dimming capability; PER option
required. Not available with 347 or 480V. Additional hardware and services
required for ROAM® deployment; must be purchased separately. Call 1-800-4426745 or email: sales@roamservices.net. N/A BL30, BL50, PIR, or PIRH.
11 PIR specifies the SensorSwitch SBGR-10-ODP control; PIRH specifies the
SensorSwitch SBGR-6-ODP control; see Motion Sensor Guide for details. Dimming
driver standard. Not available with DCR.
12 Requires an additional switched circuit. Dimming driver standard. MVOLT only.
Not available with DCR.
13 Also available as a separate accessory; see Accessories information. HS and DDL
are not available together.
14 Single fuse (SF) requires 120, 277 or 347 voltage option. Double fuse (DF) requires
208, 240 or 480 voltage option.
15 Requires luminaire to be specified with PER option. Ordered and shipped as a
separate line item from Acuity Brands Controls.
One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 800.279.8041 • Fax: 770.918.1209 • www.lithonia.com
© 2011-2014 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Shipped
installed
HS House-side
shield 13
SF Single fuse
(120, 277,
347V) 14
DF Double fuse
(208, 240,
480V) 14
L90 Left rotated
optics 1
R90 Right
rotated
optics 1
DDL Diffused
drop lens 13
Finish (required)
Performance Data
Lumen Output
Lumen values are from photometric tests performed in accordance with IESNA LM-79-08. Data is considered to be representative of the configurations shown, within the tolerances allowed by Lighting Facts. Actual performance
may differ as a result of end-user environment and application. Actual wattage may differ by +/- 8% when operating between 120-480V +/-10%. Contact factory for performance data on any configurations not shown here.
LEDs
Drive Current
(mA)
System
Watts
530 mA
35W
700 mA
45 W
1000 mA
72 W
530 mA
68W
700 mA
91 W
1000 mA
138W
20C
(20 LEDs)
40C
(40 LEDs)
Dist.
Type
T1S
T2M
T2S
T3M
T3S
T4M
T5M
T5S
T5VS
T5W
TFTM
T1S
T2M
T2S
T3M
T3S
T4M
T5M
T5S
T5VS
T5W
TFTM
T1S
T2M
T2S
T3M
T3S
T4M
T5M
T5S
T5VS
T5W
TFTM
T1S
T2M
T2S
T3M
T3S
T4M
T5M
T5S
T5VS
T5W
TFTM
T1S
T2M
T2S
T3M
T3S
T4M
T5M
T5S
T5VS
T5W
TFTM
T1S
T2M
T2S
T3M
T3S
T4M
T5M
T5S
T5VS
T5W
TFTM
30K
(3000 K, 85 CRI)
40K
(4000 K, 70 CRI)
50K
(5000 K, 70 CRI)
Lumens
B
U
G
LPW
Lumens
B
U
G
LPW
Lumens
B
U
G
LPW
2,904
2,902
2,959
2,952
2,923
2,937
3,037
3,074
3,028
3,044
2,903
3,599
3,596
3,667
3,658
3,623
3,639
3,764
3,810
3,753
3,772
3,598
4,654
4,650
4,741
4,730
4,685
4,706
4,868
4,926
4,853
4,878
4,652
5,579
5,574
5,683
5,670
5,615
5,641
5,835
5,905
5,817
5,847
5,576
7,074
7,068
7,207
7,190
7,121
7,153
7,399
7,488
7,377
7,414
7,071
9,557
9,548
9,735
9,713
9,619
9,663
9,995
10,115
9,965
10,015
9,552
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
0
0
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
83
83
85
84
84
84
87
88
87
87
83
80
80
81
81
81
81
84
85
83
84
80
65
65
66
66
65
65
68
68
67
68
65
82
82
84
83
83
83
86
87
86
86
82
78
78
79
79
78
79
81
82
81
81
78
69
69
71
70
70
70
72
73
72
73
69
3,655
3,652
3,723
3,715
3,679
3,696
3,823
3,869
3,811
3,831
3,653
4,524
4,520
4,608
4,598
4,554
4,574
4,731
4,788
4,717
4,741
4,522
6,206
6,200
6,322
6,307
6,246
6,275
6,490
6,568
6,471
6,504
6,203
7,019
7,012
7,150
7,133
7,065
7,097
7,340
7,429
7,318
7,355
7,015
8,930
8,922
9,097
9,076
8,988
9,029
9,339
9,452
9,311
9,359
8,926
12,020
12,009
12,245
12,217
12,099
12,154
12,571
12,723
12,534
12,597
12,015
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
4
3
3
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
1
1
2
3
104
104
106
106
105
106
109
111
109
109
104
101
100
102
102
101
102
105
106
105
105
100
86
86
88
88
87
87
90
91
90
90
86
103
103
105
105
104
104
108
109
108
108
103
98
98
100
100
99
99
103
104
102
103
98
87
87
89
89
88
88
91
92
91
91
87
3,941
3,937
4,014
4,005
3,966
3,984
4,121
4,171
4,109
4,130
3,939
4,902
4,898
4,994
4,983
4,935
4,957
5,127
5,189
5,112
5,138
4,900
6,640
6,634
6,764
6,749
6,684
6,714
6,945
7,028
6,924
6,959
6,637
7,565
7,558
7,706
7,688
7,614
7,649
7,912
8,007
7,888
7,928
7,561
9,619
9,610
9,798
9,776
9,682
9,726
10,060
10,181
10,030
10,080
9,614
12,957
12,946
13,199
13,169
13,042
13,102
13,552
13,715
13,511
13,579
12,951
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
4
3
3
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
1
1
2
2
113
112
115
114
113
114
118
119
117
118
113
109
109
111
111
110
110
114
115
114
114
109
92
92
94
94
93
93
96
98
96
97
92
111
111
113
113
112
112
116
118
116
117
111
106
106
108
107
106
107
111
112
110
111
106
94
94
96
95
95
95
98
99
98
98
94
Note: Available with phosphor-converted amber LED’s (nomenclature AMBPC). These LED’s produce light with 97+% >530 nm. Output can be calculated by
applying a 0.7 factor to 4000 K lumen values and photometric files.
One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 800.279.8041 • Fax: 770.918.1209 • www.lithonia.com
© 2011-2014 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved.
DSX0-LED
Rev. 10/07/14
Performance Data
Electrical Load
Lumen Ambient Temperature (LAT) Multipliers
Use these factors to determine relative lumen output for average ambient temperatures
from 0-40°C (32-104°F).
Ambient
Current (A)
Lumen Multiplier
0°C
32°F
1.02
10°C
50°F
1.01
20°C
68°F
1.00
25°C
77°F
1.00
30°C
86°F
1.00
40°C
104°F
0.99
Number
of LEDs
Drive Current
(mA)
System
Watts
120
208
240
277
347
480
530
700
1000
35
45
72
0.34
0.22
30C
530
700
1000
52
70
104
40C
530
700
1000
68
91
138
0.47
0.76
0.51
0.72
1.11
0.71
0.94
1.45
0.28
0.45
0.31
0.43
0.64
0.41
0.55
0.84
0.21
0.24
0.39
0.28
0.37
0.56
0.36
0.48
0.73
0.20
20C
-0.18
0.36
-0.25
0.47
0.25
0.33
0.69
-0.14
0.26
-0.19
0.34
0.19
0.24
0.50
0.22
0.36
0.25
0.34
0.49
0.33
0.42
0.64
Projected LED Lumen Maintenance
Data references the extrapolated performance projections for the platforms noted in a
25°C ambient, based on 10,000 hours of LED testing (tested per IESNA LM-80-08 and
projected per IESNA TM-21-11).
To calculate LLF, use the lumen maintenance factor that corresponds to the desired number
of operating hours below. For other lumen maintenance values, contact factory.
Operating Hours
0
25,000
50,000
100,000
DSX0 LED 20C 1000
Lumen Maintenance
Factor
1
0.97
0.94
0.90
1
DSX0 LED 40C 1000
0.94
0.90
DSX0 LED 40C 700
0.84
1
0.99
0.96
0.98
Photometric Diagrams
To see complete photometric reports or download .ies files for this product, visit Lithonia Lighting’s D-Series Area homepage.
1
0
1
2
3
4
3
0.5 fc
1.0 fc
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
T1S
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
T3M
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
T4M HS
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
T5M
Test No. LTL23451P25 tested in accordance
with IESNA LM-79-08.
2
Test No. LTL23456P25 tested in accordance
with IESNA LM-79-08.
0.1 fc
3
4
Test No. LTL23457P25 tested in accordance
with IESNA LM-79-08.
4
LEGEND
Test No. LTL23422P25 tested in accordance
with IESNA LM-79-08.
Isofootcandle plots for the DSX0 LED 40C 1000 40K. Distances are in units of mounting height (20’).
FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS
INTENDED USE
The sleek design of the D-Series Size 0 reflects the embedded high performance LED technology. It
is ideal for many commercial and municipal applications, such as parking lots, plazas, campuses, and
streetscapes.
CONSTRUCTION
Single-piece die-cast aluminum housing has integral heat sink fins to optimize thermal management
through conductive and convective cooling. Modular design allows for ease of maintenance and
future light engine upgrades. The LED driver is mounted in direct contact with the casting to
promote low operating temperature and long life. Housing is completely sealed against moisture
and environmental contaminants (IP65). Low EPA (0.8 ft2) for optimized pole wind loading.
FINISH
Exterior parts are protected by a zinc-infused Super Durable TGIC thermoset powder coat finish
that provides superior resistance to corrosion and weathering. A tightly controlled multi-stage
process ensures a minimum 3 mils thickness for a finish that can withstand extreme climate
changes without cracking or peeling. Available in both textured and non-textured finishes.
OPTICS
Precision-molded proprietary acrylic lenses are engineered for superior area lighting distribution,
uniformity, and pole spacing. Light engines are available in standard 4000 K (70 minimum CRI) or
optional 3000 K (80 minimum CRI) or 5000 K (70 CRI) configurations. The D-Series Size 0 has zero
uplight and qualifies as a Nighttime FriendlyTM product, meaning it is consistent with the LEED®
and Green GlobesTM criteria for eliminating wasteful uplight.
100,000 hours with <1% failure rate. Easily serviceable 10kV or 6kV surge protection device
meets a minimum Category C Low operation (per ANSI/IEEE C62.41.2).
INSTALLATION
Included mounting block and integral arm facilitate quick and easy installation. Stainless
steel bolts fasten the mounting block securely to poles and walls, enabling the D-Series Size 0
to withstand up to a 3.0 G vibration load rating per ANSI C136.31. The D-Series Size 0 utilizes
the AERISTM series pole drilling pattern. Optional terminal block, tool-less entry, and NEMA
photocontrol receptacle are also available.
LISTINGS
UL Listed for wet locations. Light engines are IP66 rated; luminaire is IP65 rated. Rated for
-40°C minimum ambient. U.S. Patent No. D672,492 S. International patent pending.
DesignLights Consortium® (DLC) qualified product. Not all versions of this product may
be DLC qualified. Please check the DLC Qualified Products List at www.designlights.org to
confirm which versions are qualified.
WARRANTY
Five-year limited warranty. Full warranty terms located at:
www.acuitybrands.com/CustomerResources/Terms_and_conditions.aspx
Note: Specifications subject to change without notice.
ELECTRICAL
Light engine(s) configurations consist of high-efficacy LEDs mounted to metal-core circuit boards
to maximize heat dissipation and promote long life (up to L96/100,000 hours at 25°C). Class 1
electronic drivers are designed to have a power factor >90%, THD <20%, and an expected life of
One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 800.279.8041 • Fax: 770.918.1209 • www.lithonia.com
© 2011-2014 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved.
DSX0-LED
Rev. 10/07/14
munich Series
SPECIFICATIONS
Large Luminaires
DESCRIPTION
The luminaire shall consist of a ballast housing and skirt with internal reflector and
horizontal lamp. Lens shall be flat, sag, half
sphere or drop globe.
DIMENSIONS
Dimensions shall be as detailed on the back
page.
MATERIALS
The ballast housing and skirt shall be cast
aluminum. Globe material shall be clear glass,
flat or sag, or clear acrylic, half sphere or drop
globe. The reflector shall be anodized and
segmented for superior uniformity and control. All hardware shall be stainless steel.
INSTALLATION
The luminaire shall have 1.5” female, NPT
at top for mounting to the Eurotique™ 5"
diameter arms. The globe shall be gasketed
and mounted on an aluminum ring which
is hinged to the skirt and furnished with a
captive screw for easy relamping. The reflector shall pivot and be secured with a captive
screw for easy access to the ballast plate. The
ballast and socket assembly shall be furnished
with a quick disconnect plug and mount on a
removable ballast plate.
FINISH
For finish specifications and color options, see
“Finish” section in catalog.
LIGHT SOURCE
EM25RT GCSG
Luminaires shall be furnished with an H.I.D.
ballast and socket assembly. Luminaire shall
be UL listed and labeled as suitable for wet
locations. Socket shall be glazed porcelain,
mogul base, with a copper alloy nickel plated
screw shell and center contact. Ballast shall
be core and coil, high power factor, regulating
type.
CERTIFICATION
Upon request, manufacturer shall supply UL
file# and listing information.
PHOTOMETRY
See "Eurotique™ Photometrics" tab in catalog.
eurotique™
Architectural Lighting
ANTIQUE Street Lamps
2011-B W. Rundberg Ln.•Austin, TX 78758
Ph (512) 977-8444•Fax (512) 977-9622
www.antiquestreetlamps.com
EL-9
Fluted
Ballast Housing
Smooth
Ballast Housing
Ringed
Ballast Housing
munich Series
EM25RT
GCF
EM25RT
GCSG
EM25RT
ACHS
25"w
26.5"h
25"w
31.5"h
25"w
23"h
EM25ST
GCF
EM25ST
GCSG
25"w
23"h
EM25FT
GCF
EM25RT
ACD
25"w
36.5"h
EM25ST
ACHS
EM25ST
ACD
25"w
26.5"h
25"w
31.5"h
EM25FT
GCSG
EM25FT
ACHS
EM25FT
ACD
25"w
26.5"h
25"w
31.5"h
25"w
36.5"h
25"w
23"h
Flat Glass
eurotique™ Architectural Lighting
Large Luminaires
25"w
36.5"h
Sag Glass
Half Sphere
Drop Globe
Cast Aluminum Plumb Housing (Eurotique™ 5" Arm)
1.5” Aluminum Swivel Nipple (Eurotique™ 5" Arm)
Stainless Steel Socket Set Screw
Quick Disconnect Plug
Cast Aluminum Ballast Housing
H.I.D. Ballast Components (Factory Prewired)
Removable Ballast Plate with (3) Keyhole Slots and Screws
Cast Aluminum Skirt
Quick Disconnect Plug
Aluminum Reflector, Pivoting with Captive Screw
Porcelain Mogul Base Socket
Hinged Aluminum Lens Ring with Captive Screw
Lens with Continuous Gasket
ORDERING INFORMATION
Choose the boldface catalog nomenclature that best suits your needs and write it on the appropriate line.
Series
EM25RT
EM25ST
EM25FT
Wattage/Lamp
H.I.D. ballast & socket
250M MOG 175 watt Metal Halide
400M MOG 250 watt Metal Halide
150S MOG 400 watt Metal Halide
250S MOG 150 watt High Pressure Sodium
400S MOG 250 watt High Pressure Sodium
400 watt High Pressure Sodium
Distribution3
SR2
SR3
SR4SC
SR4W
SR5S
IES
IES
IES
IES
IES
Distribution
Distribution
Distribution
Distribution
Distribution
Lens Material
GCF
GCSG
ACHS
ACD
­EL-10
Glass, Clear Flat
Glass, Clear Sag
Acrylic, Clear Half Sphere
Acrylic, Clear Drop Globe
Example: EM25RT 150S MOG GCSG SR2 120 ANBK DF
Voltage
120
208
240
277
3471
480
TB1 
Finish2
Options
HS House Side Shield
Black
SF Single Fusing
Dark Bronze
DF Double Fusing
Dark Green
Verde Green
Prime Painted
Custom Match
Custom Select
RAL colors
NOTES:
1. Multi-tap Ballast (120, 208, 240, 277v), (120, 277, 347v in
Canada). For wattages under 70S or 70M contact ASL
for voltage availability.
2. For finish and color options, see Finish section in catalog.
3. See Photometric tab for IES classifications and Iso Illuminance plots for each lens type and reflector combination.
ANBK
ANDB
ANDG
ANVG
ANPP
CM
CS
ANTIQUE Street Lamps
2011-B W. Rundberg Ln.•Austin, TX 78758
Ph (512) 977-8444 • Fax (512)977-9622
www.antiquestreetlamps.com
2"TREE
/
DAVIS AVE.
5% OF THE TOTAL PAVED AREA SHALL BE PROVIDED
AS LANDSCAPE AREAS
/
33 UNITS PROPOSED
SPACING
ROOT
COMMENT
3" CAL
SEE PLAN
B&B
FULL, MATCHED HEADS
3" CAL
SEE PLAN
B&B
FULL, MATCHED HEADS
8' HT
SEE PLAN
B&B
BRANCHED TO GROUND
3" CAL
SEE PLAN
B&B
FULL, MATCHED HEADS
24-30" HT
30" OC
B&B
MAINTAIN AS HEDGE
24-30" HT
30" OC
B&B
MAINTAIN AS HEDGE
4-5' HT
SEE PLAN
B&B
SHEAR AT 5' HT
36" HT
SEE PLAN
B&B
TREES
AB
10
LS
3
PG
17
TC
5
Acer rubrum 'Bowhall'
Bowhall Red Maple
Liquidambar styraciflua 'Worpelsdon'
Worpelsdon Sweet Gum
Picea glauca 'Densata'
Black Hills Spruce
Tilia cordata 'Chancellor'
Chancellor Linden
.
RD
civil Engineers
Land Surveyors
Land Planners
BRADFORD RD.
LOCATION MAP
NOWAK & FRAUS ENGINEERS
46777 Woodward Ave.
Pontiac, MI 48342-5032
Tel. (248) 332-7931
Fax. (248) 332-8257
N.T.S.
/
SIZE
ENGINEERS
/
BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME
LD
FIE
EF
SH
FOURTEEN MILE ROAD
THE APPLICANT WOULD SEEK A
WAIVER ON THE REQUIREMENT FOR
TREES ALONG COLE AVENUE, AS
THERE IS INSUFFICIENT AREA TO PLANT,
AND THE ARE OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES
RUNNING ALONG THE FRONTAGE
33 UNITS / 2 = 17 DECIDUOUS AND 17 EVERGREEN TREES
PLANT SCHEDULE
QTY
/
1 DECIDUOUS AND 1 EVERGREEN TREE PER 2 UNITS
BIRD AVE.
/
AREA PROVIDED: 593.98 S.F. W/ 3 TREES
NF
E
BLE
TA
NS
DU
/
PROPOSED STREET LIGHT
PER CITY STANDARDS
TYPICAL, FINAL PLACEMENT
TO BE APPROVED BY ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT
5% X 10,230.66 S.F. = 512 S.F. REQUIRED
RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
KEY
SMITH AVE.
NF
S
AVE.
.
AVE
PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
S
PAVED AREA: 10,230.66 S.F.
AVE.
EMMONS
N
W
MELTON
(3 EXISTING, 1 PROPOSED)
Y
MANSFIELD
CHAPIN
159.5 L.F. / 40 L.F. = 3.95 OR 4 TREES REQUIRED
BANBUR
N
BENNAVIILLE
COMMERCE ST.
RD
WA
OD
WO
E
NF
SITE
LTO
(3 EXISTING, 7 PROPOSED)
W
HUMPHREY AVE.
ME
380.57 L.F. / 40 L.F. = 9.5 OR 10 TREES REQUIRED
S. ETON ST.
RUFFNER AVE.
VENUE
COLE50A
' WIDE
STREET FRONTAGE TREES
LINCOLN
COMMERCE
E. LINCOLN ST.
TROY ST.
30,798.73 S.F. OR 0.71 ACRES
TAUNTON RD.
LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
EXISTING SITE AREA:
COLE ST.
S. ADAMS RD.
N
SEAL
10' SEWER EASEMENT
(PER PLAT)
19"HO
19"HONEY
LOCUST
LOCU
SHRUBS
IC
57
TO
11
VC
10
ZONED: MX,
MIXED-USE
PROJECT
24" OC
CONT
2 GAL
24" OC
CONT
3 GAL
30" OC
CONT
District Apartments 2159 E. Lincoln Street Birmingham, Michigan
18
18"HONEY
LOCUST
LO
4
2 GAL
74
GROUNDCOVERS/PERENNIALS
Hemerocallis 'Stella D'Oro'
23
HS
Stella D'Oro Daylily
Hosta 'Halcyon'
34
HH
Halcyon Hosta
Panicum virgatum 'Northwind'
19
PV
Northwind Switchgrass
/
26
/
BX
Buxus x 'Winter Gem'
Winter Gem Boxwood
Ilex crenata 'Green Luster'
Green Luster Holly
Thuja occidentalis 'Nigra'
Dark Green Arborvitae
Viburnum carlesii
Koreanspice Viburnum
ALL LAWN TREES SHALL
HAVE 4' DIA MULCH RING W/
3" DEPTH SHREDDED
HARDWOOD BARK MULCH,
TYPICAL
ZONED: MX,
MIXED-USE
PUBLIC UTILTY EASEMENT
CLIENT
/
Lincoln Birmingham
Properties, LLC
30100 Telegraph Road,
Suite 220,
Bingham Farms, MI, 48025
/ /
DTE TRANSFORMER PAD
SHALL HAVE 2' WD STONE
MULCH
PROPOSED ARBORVITAE HEDGE
SHALL BE SHEARED AND
MAINTAINED AT 5', TYPICAL
1
EMENT
Contact: Sean Havera
248.647.2600 - Tel
248.647.1330 - Fax
/
74
11.92'
1.9
9 2'
PROJECT LOCATION
11.04'
Part of the SE 1 4
of Section 31
T.2N. , R.11E.
City of Birmingham,
Oakland County, Michigan
X
X
9"SPRUCE
14"HONEY
LOCUST
X
X
PROPOSED BIKE RACKS ON
PROPOSED CONCRETE PAD
COMMERCE STREET
15
5
153.65'
ALL PERIMETER LAWN AREAS WITHIN
SITE SHALL BE SOD ON 3" FINEGRADED TOPSOIL, TYPICAL
6
SHEET
Landscape Plan
60' WIDE
PROPOSED STREET LIGHT
PER CITY STANDARDS
TYPICAL, FINAL PLACEMENT
TO BE APPROVED BY ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT
3
R
/
14"HONEY
LOCUST
/
Know what's below
Call before you dig.
PROPOSED 18" WD STONE MULCH
W/ 4-6" DEPTH WASHED 3/4" TO 1 1/2"
DIA MULCH, TYPICAL
REVISIONS
07-28-14 ISSUED FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
08-19-14 REVISED PER SITE PLAN REVIEW
PROPOSED 4 STORY
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
W/ 1ST LEVEL PARKING
PROPOSED BENCH AND
TRASH RECEPTACLE
PER DISTRICT STANDARDS,
TYPICAL
10-13-14 REVISED PER SITE PLAN REVIEW
12-19-14 REVISED PER SITE PLAN REVIEW
2.26'
/
/
74
/
740
09-17-14 REVISED PER SITE PLAN REVIEW
PROPOSED STREET FURNISHINGS
SHALL BE PLACED SO AS TO NOT
CONFLICT WITH EXISTING DOOR.
EXISTING SHRUBS TO BE REMOVED
AS NECESSARY
/
1
11"MAPLE
11"M
MAPLE
MA
DRAWN BY:
G. Ostrowski
8"MAPLE
8"M
8
"M
"M
4"TREE
PROPOSED CONCRETE
PAVERS, PATTERN AND
COLOR TO BE DETERMINED
10"
1 MAPLE
ALL LAWN AREAS WITHIN R.O.W.
SHALL BE SOD ON 3" FINE-GRADED
TOPSOIL, TYPICAL
PROPOSED STREET LIGHT
PER CITY STANDARDS
TYPICAL
ALL STREET TREES SHALL
HAVE 4' DIA MULCH RING W/
3" DEPTH SHREDDED HARDWOOD
BARK MULCH, TYPICAL
PROPOSED STREET LIGHT
PER CITY STANDARDS
TYPICAL
LINCOLN AVENUE
60' WIDE
DESIGNED BY:
G. Ostrowski
APPROVED BY:
ALL STREET TREES SHALL
HAVE 4' DIA MULCH RING W/
3" DEPTH SHREDDED HARDWOOD
BARK MULCH, TYPICAL
G. Ostrowski
DATE:
July 25, 2014
SCALE:
20
1" = 20'
10
0
10
20
NFE JOB NO.
sheet no.
F645-06
L1
30
52" High Roof Screen
45" High Roof Screen
Metal Coping Cap
Painted Cement Board Trim
Metal Coping Cap
Aluminum Clad Wood Trellis
Burnished Block
Veneer [accent color]
Fixed 3 Panel Slider
Aluminum Residential
Window
Pre-Cast Sill
Ornamental Metal Rail
Painted Cement Board Panels
Burnished Block Veneer [field color]
Burnished Block
Veneer [field color]
Burnished Block Veneer [accent color]
Fixed 3 Panel Slider
Pre-Cast Sill
Ornamental Metal Rail
Painted Cement
Board Panels
Stainless Steel Individually Cut
Surface Mounted Letters Non Illuminated
Painted Metal Canopy Structure
Split Face Load
Bearing Masonry Block
Aluminum Storefront
Aluminum Storefront
Glazing Schedule | Upper Floors
Glazing Schedule | First Floor
Total Wall Area
100%
2,422 sf
Total Wall Length
100%
200'-0"
Required Glazing
Provided Glazing
<50%
27%
1,211 sf
652 sf
Required Glazing
Provided Glazing
70%
70%
140' - 0"
141' - 8"
Required Wall
Provided Wall
30%
30%
60' - 0"
58' - 4"
45" High Roof Screen
Metal Coping Cap
52" High Roof Screen
Painted Cement Board Trim
Metal Coping Cap
Aluminum Clad Wood Trellis
Burnished Block Veneer [accent color]
Fixed 3 Panel Slider
Ornamental Metal Rail
Aluminum Residential Window
Pre-Cast Sill
Painted Cement Board Panels
Burnished Block
Veneer [field color]
Burnished Block
Veneer [accent color]
Pre-Cast Sill
Burnished Block Veneer [field color]
Drawing: P:\2013\P13825\Dwgs\3d\stills\20141217 - Elevation\Support\xx00AE01.dwg
Date: Dec 19, 2014, 11:18am Layout: A-005 Plotted by: sadams
Fixed 2 Panel Slider
Tinted Windows
in Aluminum Frame
Split Face Load
Bearing Masonry Block
Split Face Load bearing Masonry Block
Tinted Windows in Aluminum Frame
52" High Roof Screen
45" High Roof Screen
Metal Coping Cap
Burnished Block Veneer [accent color]
Aluminum Residential Window
Pre-Cast Sill
Metal Coping Cap
Burnished Block Veneer [accent color]
Aluminum Residential Window
Pre-Cast Sill
Burnished Block Veneer [field color]
Burnished Block Veneer [field color]
Fixed 3 Panel Slider
Ornamental Metal Rail
Painted Cement Board Panels
Rolling Door
Split Face Load bearing Masonry Block
Tinted Windows in Aluminum Frame
Split Face Load bearing Masonry Block
Tinted Windows in Aluminum Frame
52" High Roof Screen
45" High Roof Screen
Metal Coping Cap
Burnished Block Veneer [accent color]
Aluminum Residential Window
Pre-Cast Sill
Metal Coping Cap
Burnished Block Veneer [accent color]
Aluminum Residential Window
Pre-Cast Sill
Burnished Block Veneer [field color]
Fixed 3 Panel Slider
Burnished Block Veneer [field color]
Ornamental Metal Rail
Drawing: P:\2013\P13825\Dwgs\3d\stills\20141217 - Elevation\Support\xx00AE01.dwg
Date: Dec 19, 2014, 11:18am Layout: A-006 Plotted by: sadams
Painted Cement Board Panels
Painted Metal Canopy Structure
Split Face Load Bearing Masonry Block
Tinted Windows in Aluminum Frame
Split Face Load Bearing Masonry Block
AGENDA
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January 22, 2015
TO:
Planning Board members
FROM:
Jana L. Ecker, Planning Director
SUBJECT:
Garage Front Houses
Community Development
It has come to the attention of the Planning Division that several issues have arisen with
regards to the application of design standards for single family homes with attached private
garages. While the Planning Division does not conduct site plan or design review for singlefamily zoned property in the City, the Planning Board in the late 1990’s drafted basic design
standards to ensure that the front of single-family homes provided an inviting and pedestrianoriented façade and connection to the sidewalk and the neighborhood.
One such standard is found in Article 4, section 4.70 SS-02, Structure Standards, of the Zoning
Ordinance, which states:
The following structure standards apply:
1. A private, attached, single-family residential garage shall not occupy more than 50% of
the linear building frontage of the principal residential building, and must be setback a
minimum of 5 feet from the front façade of a principal residential building.
2. Garage doors on an attached garage which are visible from the street may not exceed 8
feet in width; wherever there are multiple doors, they must be separated by a solid wall
or jamb not less than 8 inches wide.
The standards in section 4.70 apply to all of the single-family zoning districts, which include the
R1A, R1, R2 and R3 zone districts. Article 9, section 9.02, Definitions, of the Zoning Ordinance
further provides the following definitions to assist in clarifying the design standards outlined in
section 4.70 above:
Garage, Attached Private: That portion of a principal residential building to be used for
the storage of non-commercial motor vehicles, provided that not more than one commercial
vehicle of less than three-quarter-ton capacity may be stored in the private garage and
there shall be no services or commodities offered to the public in connection therewith.
These garages must be enclosed with doors.
Building, Principal: A building or, where the context so indicates, a group of buildings, in
which is conducted the main or principal use of the lot on which the building is situated.
Façade: The vertical exterior surface of a building that is set parallel to a setback line.
Setback: That distance set forth on each two-page layout in Article 2, between any lot line
and a line parallel thereto on the same lot except as otherwise provided in the Zoning
Ordinance (see Lot and Building).
Use, Principal: The primary and chief purpose for which a lot is used, which use is
conducted within a principal building, or as otherwise specified by the Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Board drafted the provisions in section 4.70 and the definitions in section 9.02 of
the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that attached private garages did not dominate the front of
single family homes after complaints arose when multiple “garage front houses” were
constructed in the late 1990’s. In accordance with section 4.70, no more than 50% of the
width of the front of a single-family home can be an attached private garage AND any such
attached garage that is on the front façade must be setback 5’ from the front façade of the
principal residential home.
However, over the years, creative design plans have been submitted to the City and approved
for single-family homes with attached, private garages that protrude in front of the principal
residential building on the site. This has been accomplished by adding a small conditioned
living space (such as an office, tool room, exercise room etc.) to the very front of the attached
private garage facing the street, and / or building residential living space above the attached,
private garages. Complaints have been received that these designs are a violation of the
structure standards contained in section 4.70 of the Zoning Ordinance, or at the very least, are
a violation of the intent of the structure standards contained in section 4.70 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The current interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance provisions by the Building Official for designs
such as those described above is that when second story living space within the principal
building extends over and five feet in front of an attached garage, the provisions of section 4.70
SS-02 (1) have been met. While these designs could be cantilevered in front of the garage or
supported on columns, those recently constructed have habitable space in front of the attached
garage that is connected by a stair to the second level living area. Extending the living area
over an attached garage and then down in front of the garage by at least five feet, designers
have found a way to technically comply with the ordinance by removing the garage from the
linear building frontage and setting it back five feet from the front facade. The Building Official
and Assistant Building Official were present at the January 26, 2014 Planning Board meeting to
further discuss this issue and to explain how several creative designs have been determined to
technically meet the design standards in the Zoning Ordinance.
Based on numerous citizen complaints, the Planning Board was requested to review and discuss
some of the recently approved designs and determine if these creative garage front home
designs are consistent with the intent of the standards drafted by a former Planning Board and
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, as well as the vision for the development of the City. If
they are not, the Planning Board may wish to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to
further clarify the design standards for single family homes with attached private garages.
On January 26, 2014, the Planning Board discussed the issue of garage front houses after
reviewing photos and plans from several different homes that have been built or are under
construction. Individual board members expressed support to move garages to the side or rear
of houses, while others expressed concern about pushing the scale and mass of garages into
rear yards. The consensus of a majority of the Planning Board was to come up with a way to
amend the ordinance language to bring the front door of houses closer to the street, and to
reduce the dominance of attached garages so that they are not the primary feature visible from
the street. The Planning Board requested that staff come up with some options for ordinance
amendments and begin discussing the consequences of such changes.
On November 19, 2014, staff conducted a PowerPoint presentation that offered a history of
home design in the City that illustrated why a provision to control the placement of garages was
originally desired, and how home designs have been altered over the years as a result of the
existing attached garage regulations. The presentation also illustrated how designers have
managed to work around the provision to design homes with dominant attached garages, and
offered two suggestions for the Planning Board to consider to provide appropriate controls.
The two main options considered by the Planning Board were as follows:
Option 1– Regulate the Placement of Attached Garages on the Front Facade



Garage must be setback a minimum of 5’ from the portion of the front façade that is
furthest setback from the front property line;
Front façade of garage cannot exceed 50% of the total front façade;
Front facing garage doors are permitted if they do not exceed 9’ in width and are
separated by a solid wall or jamb not less than 8” in width (see garage door width
below).
Option 2 – Regulate the Maximum Size of Attached Garages on the Linear Front
Façade


Provide a definition of linear front façade that includes all portions of the front façade
from side yard to side yard regardless of whether parallel to the front property line;
Maximum size for attached garages when any portion of the garage is located on the
linear front façade (similar to the limitations for detached garages):


 600 Sq. Ft. in R1 and R1A;
 550 Sq. Ft. in R2; and
 500 Sq. Ft. in R3;
Living space in front of and above garages must provide for daily living (such as master
bedrooms, laundry rooms, bathrooms etc.);
Living space in front of and above garages must function together between floors and
be connected by an internal stair. It was clearly noted that both options above place additional restrictions on attached garages
located on front facades ONLY. Neither of the above options control the size or design of
attached garages not located on the front façade, and neither of these options change the
existing controls on detached garages and accessory structures.
On November 19, 2014, the Planning Board also discussed the maximum width of front facing
garage doors to allow easier maneuvering of vehicles into the garage. Complaints are often
received by the Building Division with regards to the narrow width of front facing garage doors
permitted. Currently front facing garage doors can be a maximum of 8’ in width and must be
separated by a jamb at least 8” in width. The Planning Board indicated their support to
increase the maximum width for front facing garage doors to 9’ in width, while maintaining the
requirement for such doors to be separated by a jamb at least 8” in width.
After much discussion, the consensus of the Planning Board was to eliminate option 2 as it was
too complex and the Board was not in favor of allowing small areas of living space to be tacked
on to the front of attached garages. Board members stated that they were in favor of allowing
living space above attached garages. The Board thus directed staff to eliminate option 2, and
to refine option 1 keeping in the provision that the front façade of attached garages cannot
exceed 50% of the width of the front of the house and must be setback a minimum of 5’ from
the front of the house, but refining clearly what portion of the front façade the garage must be
set back from. Board members discussed considering using the longest portion of the front
façade for calculating the setback of the attached, front facing garage or the average front
façade setback, or the setback from the main entrance to the home.
Accordingly, please see attached ordinance language that incorporates each of these
refinements to the previously discussed option 1. Notes are included in blue type at the
bottom of each option to stimulate discussion at the Planning Board meeting on January 28,
2015. ORIGINAL OPTION 1
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
BIRMINGHAM TO AMEND ARTICLE 04, STRUCTURE STANDARDS, SECTION 4.70 SS02, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR ATTACHED, SINGLE-FAMILY GARAGES.
THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:
Section 4.70 SS-02, Structure Standards:
The following structure standards apply:
1. A private, attached, single-family residential garage shall not occupy more than 50%
of the linear building frontage of the principal residential building, and must be
setback a minimum of 5 feet from the portion of the front façade on the first
floor of a principal residential building that is furthest setback from the front
property line.
2. Garage doors on an attached garage which are visible from the street may not
exceed 8 9 feet in width; wherever there are multiple doors, they must be
separated by a solid wall or jamb not less than 8 inches wide.
ORDAINED this ________ day of ____________, 2015 to become effective 7 days after
publication.
_____________________
Stuart R. Sherman, Mayor
_____________________
Laura Pierce, City Clerk
NOTES:
Easy to understand and design accordingly
Easy to review for compliance and enforce
Would eliminate examples shown on Frank, Pleasant and Chesterfield.
OPTION 1A
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
BIRMINGHAM TO AMEND ARTICLE 04, STRUCTURE STANDARDS, SECTION 4.70 SS02, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR ATTACHED, SINGLE-FAMILY GARAGES.
THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:
Section 4.70 SS-02, Structure Standards:
The following structure standards apply:
3. A private, attached, single-family residential garage shall not occupy more than 50%
of the linear building frontage of the principal residential building, and must be
setback a minimum of 5 feet from the longest portion of front façade on the first
floor of a principal residential building, excluding allowable projections into
required open space.
4. Garage doors on an attached garage which are visible from the street may not
exceed 8 9 feet in width; wherever there are multiple doors, they must be
separated by a solid wall or jamb not less than 8 inches wide.
ORDAINED this ________ day of ____________, 2015 to become effective 7 days after
publication.
_____________________
Stuart R. Sherman, Mayor
_____________________
Laura Pierce, City Clerk
NOTES:
Easy to understand and design accordingly
Easy to review for compliance and enforce
Would still allow examples shown on Frank, Pleasant and Chesterfield with
minor modifications.
OPTION 1B
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
BIRMINGHAM TO AMEND ARTICLE 04, STRUCTURE STANDARDS, SECTION 4.70 SS02, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR ATTACHED, SINGLE-FAMILY GARAGES.
THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:
Section 4.70 SS-02, Structure Standards:
The following structure standards apply:
1. A private, attached, single-family residential garage shall not occupy more than 50%
of the linear building frontage of the principal residential building, and must be
setback a minimum of 5 feet from the average setback of all portions of the
front façade on the first floor of a principal residential building, excluding
allowable projections into required open space.
2. Garage doors on an attached garage which are visible from the street may not
exceed 8 9 feet in width; wherever there are multiple doors, they must be
separated by a solid wall or jamb not less than 8 inches wide.
ORDAINED this ________ day of ____________, 2015 to become effective 7 days after
publication.
_____________________
Stuart R. Sherman, Mayor
_____________________
Laura Pierce, City Clerk
NOTES:
Most difficult to calculate and design accordingly
Most difficult to review for compliance and enforce
Would still allow examples shown on Frank, Pleasant and Chesterfield with
modifications.
OPTION 1C
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
BIRMINGHAM TO AMEND ARTICLE 04, STRUCTURE STANDARDS, SECTION 4.70 SS02, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR ATTACHED, SINGLE-FAMILY GARAGES.
THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:
Section 4.70 SS-02, Structure Standards:
The following structure standards apply:
1. A private, attached, single-family residential garage shall not occupy more than 50%
of the linear building frontage of the principal residential building, and must be
setback a minimum of 5 feet from the main entry door on the front façade on
the first floor of a principal residential building.
2. Garage doors on an attached garage which are visible from the street may not
exceed 8 feet in width; wherever there are multiple doors, they must be separated
by a solid wall or jamb not less than 8 inches wide. In order to be considered a
main entry door for the purpose of (1) above, the entry door must be
located on a portion of the front façade at least 8’ in width.
3. Garage doors on an attached garage which are visible from the street may
not exceed 9 feet in width; wherever there are multiple doors, they must
be separated by a solid wall or jamb not less than 8 inches wide
ORDAINED this ________ day of ____________, 2015 to become effective 7 days after
publication.
_____________________
Stuart R. Sherman, Mayor
_____________________
Laura Pierce, City Clerk
NOTES:
Harder to understand and design accordingly
Easy to review for compliance and enforce
Would eliminate examples shown on Frank, Pleasant and Chesterfield.
Would eliminate front facing attached garage option if main door not on front
façade, or main door is on a portion of the front façade less than 8’ in width.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 26, 2014
STUDY SESSION
Garage Front Houses
Ms. Ecker advised it has come to the attention of the Planning Division that several issues have
arisen with regards to the application of design standards for single-family homes with attached
private garages. The Planning Board in the late 1990’s drafted basic design standards to ensure
that the front of single-family homes provided an inviting and pedestrian-oriented façade and
connection to the sidewalk and the neighborhood.
However, over the years, creative design plans have been submitted to the City and approved
for single-family homes with attached, private garages that protrude in front of the principal
residential building on the site. This has been accomplished by adding a small conditioned living
space (such as an office, tool room, exercise room, etc.) to the very front of the attached
private garage facing the street, and/or building residential living space above the attached,
private garages.
The Planning Division and the Building Division request that the Planning Board review and
discuss some of the recently approved designs and determine if these creative garage front
home designs are consistent with the intent of the standards drafted by a former Planning
Board and contained in the Zoning Ordinance, as well as the vision for the development of the
City. If they are not, the Planning Board may wish to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance.
The group viewed several examples. It was Ms. Whipple-Boyce's opinion that the board needs
to come up with a way to tighten up the Ordinance language in order to bring things closer to
the intent of getting the garage behind the house and moving the front door up to the street.
Mr. Johnson felt that could be done by clarifying definitions.
Chairman Boyle cautioned the board has to be careful not to kill thoughtful, sophisticated
design and construction just to impose their regulations.
Mr. Cooper said the reason for these designs is that the builders' customers want attached
garages.
Chairman Boyle noticed in the examples shown that people have decided to use the front space
in a way that isn't as conducive to the neighborhood because they want to preserve their land
at the rear. Mr. Cooper said garages are being designed in the front because by moving the
garage to the rear, even though attached, a lot coverage issue comes into play and a lot more
driveway is required.
Mr. Williams wasn't sure he agrees with the basic premise. He doesn't like the way some
development is pushing detached garages as far back as possible, right up against the rear
property owner's backyard.
Mr. DeWeese wanted to see some options along with their consequences for all types of lots.
The chairman invited comments from the public at 9:07 p.m.
Mr. J.C. Cataldo said that when he was part of the Planning Board they went through an
exhaustive analysis of what was happening to the neighborhoods. They came to the conclusion
that garages should not be the primary point of the home. He appreciates the board taking a
look at the language again and thinks the neighborhoods will be a lot better off for it.
Ms. Ecker agreed that staff will come back with some solutions that show a little more context.
Chairman Boyle noted if too many rules and regulations are imposed the outcome will be cookie
cutter designs.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
November 19, 2014
STUDY SESSION
Garage Front Houses
Ms. Ecker provided an overview. Back in 1998, the Planning Board drafted the
provisions in section 4.70 and the definitions in section 9.02 of the Zoning Ordinance to
ensure that attached private garages did not dominate the front of single-family homes
after complaints arose when multiple “garage front houses” were constructed in the late
1990s.
However, over the years creative design plans have been submitted to the City and
approved for single-family homes with attached, private garages that protrude in front
of the principal residential building on the site. By extending the living area over an
attached garage and then down in front of the garage by at least 5 ft., designers have
found a way to technically comply with the ordinance by removing the garage from the
linear building frontage and setting it back 5 ft. from the front facade. Complaints have
been received that these designs are a violation of the structure standards contained in
section 4.70 of the Zoning Ordinance, or at the very least, are a violation of the intent of
the structure standards contained in section 4.70 of the Zoning Ordinance. There is no
interaction between people within the house and people on the street.
Ms. Ecker conducted a PowerPoint presentation that illustrated why a provision was
added in the first place, how people have gotten around it, and suggestions for
appropriate controls.
At the January 26, 2014 meeting of the Planning Board, the majority consensus of the
members was to request staff to come up with some options to amend the ordinance
language to bring the front door of houses closer to the street, and to reduce the
dominance of attached garages so they are not the primary feature visible from the
street. The following options were offered for consideration by the Planning Board:
 Option 1 - Regulate the placement of attached garages on the front facade; and
 Option 2 - Regulate the maximum size of attached garages on the linear front facade.
Neither of the above options control the size or design of attached garages not located
on the front facade or change the existing controls on detached garages and accessory
structures. The rule remains that garages cannot be more than 50% of the width of the
front of the house.
Additionally, the Planning Board may wish to increase the maximum width for front
facing garage doors from 8 ft. to 9 ft. to provide for easier maneuvering of vehicles into
the garage. It is recommended that if this is changed, the requirement for such doors
to be separated by a jamb at least 8 in. in width continue.
Mr. Johnson announced the Building Dept. worked together with Planning to explore the
garages.
Mr. Koseck was okay with living space being above the garage, but just not tacked out
in front.
Chairman Clein's opinion was that Option 2 is far too complex and restrictive. Option 1
reflects more the intent. However, with Option 1 he feels that setting back 5 ft. from
the furthest facade back from the front property line deters any articulation and keeps
people from being creative with the frontages. He suggested allowing garages to be
front facing only if they are less than 50% of the width of the front facade and only if
they are 5 ft. back from the main entry.
Ms. Lazar leaned toward Option 1. Mr. Koseck thought Option 1 is clear and he doesn't
find it restrictive. Ms. Whipple-Boyce suggested that the garage be pushed back from
the largest front facade.
The chairman called for public comments at 8:16 p.m.
Mr. J.C. Cataldo, 271 Chesterfield, thought the garage could be set back 5 ft. from the
average front footage of the remaining structure on the site.
Ms. Ecker summarized that staff will remove Option 2 from consideration and work on
refining Option 1. Board members were fine with increasing the width of garage doors
from 8 ft. to 9 ft. Mr. Koseck emphasized the necessity to act quickly on this matter.
AGENDA
Administrative Approvals
Period : Jan 01/2014 ‐ Dec 31/2014
Reference
Permit Type
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
14‐001
14‐008
14‐009
14‐012
14‐014
14‐015
14‐016
14‐023
14‐026
14‐028
14‐029
14‐030
14‐031
14‐032
14‐034
14‐035
14‐037
14‐038
14‐039
14‐041
14‐044
14‐045
14‐046
14‐047
14‐051
14‐052
14‐053
14‐054
14‐055
14‐056
14‐057
14‐058
14‐061
14‐062
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
Date Issued
1/2/2014
1/2/2014
1/21/2014
2/21/2014
2/28/2014
3/14/2014
4/1/2014
4/1/2014
4/1/2014
5/9/2014
6/5/2014
6/11/2014
6/11/2014
6/13/2014
6/19/2014
6/23/2014
6/23/2014
6/26/2014
6/27/2014
6/27/2014
7/2/2014
7/25/2014
7/25/2014
7/28/2014
7/29/2014
7/31/2014
8/5/2014
8/7/2014
8/7/2014
9/2/2014
9/2/2014
9/4/2014
9/4/2014
9/4/2014
9/4/2014
9/5/2014
9/10/2014
9/12/2014
9/15/2014
Address
180 S Old Woodward
555 S. Old Woodward
2000 Villa
300/350 Woodland Villa
820 E. Maple
142 S.Old Woodward
250 Woodland Villa
200 Woodland Villa
150 Woodland Villa
1800 W. Maple
505 W. Brown
575 N.Eton
34500 Woodward
1092 Waterfall
210 S Old Woodward
2340 Cole
220 Merrill
35001 Woodward
116 S.Old Woodward
555 S. Old Woodward
33600 Woodward
480 Pierce
34977 Woodward
401 S.Old Woodward
33801 Woodward
33622 Woodward
215 W. Maple
600 N.Old Woodward
600 N.Old Woodward
250 Martin
641 Southfield
115 W. Brown
33801 Woodward
300 Woodland Villa
350 Woodland Villa
2666 W 14 Mile
34660 Woodward
400 S.Old Woodward
685 E. Maple
Description
Fresh Air intake exhaust and condensor T‐Mobile cell tower modifications
Exterior change
Exterior detail change
Conservatory
Rooftop screen
Screening
Screening
Screening
Driveway lighting
Gazebo/Flagpole
Demo tasting room
New signage
Generator
Addition of canvas Banner outside entry
Roof Opening
Screening, mechanical+dumpster
Temporary construction
Umbrellas
Rooftop Mechanical Unit
As‐Built‐ Previous site plan 11/16/13
Roof replacement
Paint signage red, add umbrellas
Adding six cell phone antennas
Roof top Pave gravel area
RTU Screening
Landscaping
Outdoor Patio
Chimney
Addition
Landscaping
Pavers to aggregate
A/C + Generator
A/C + Generator
New Antennas
Fence
Second floor office to residential
RTU Screening
14‐064
14‐067
14‐068
14‐069
14‐073
14‐074
14‐076
14‐078
14‐079
14‐080
14‐082
14‐087
14‐093
14‐094
14‐096
14‐099
14‐100
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
9/23/2014
9/23/2014
9/24/2014
9/29/2014
10/4/2014
10/28/2014
10/28/2014
10/28/2014
11/12/2014
11/12/2014
11/20/2014
12/4/2014
12/9/2014
12/9/2014
12/10/2014
12/16/2014
12/17/2014
34750 Woodward
2425 E.Lincoln
442 S.Old Woodward
633 S.Adams
1712 Grayfield
1076 Wimbleton
2425 E.Lincoln
2450 Cole
400 Woodland Villa
442 S.Old Woodward
550 Merrill
820 E.Maple
2080 E. Maple 2450 Cole st
685 E. Maple
138 S. Old Woodward
400 S.Old Woodward
New Gas Pumps
Sign change
New Windows
RTU Screening
Roof Vent
Fence
Window change
New door and window
Generator
RTU Screening
Landscaping
Signage
Cell Tower
Rooftop screening
Drain pipes,light bollards, sign changes
Added Transom Change 2nd floor from office to residential