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 <[email protected]> DFCU 1 message vince pangle <[email protected]> Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM ReplyTo: vince pangle <[email protected]> To: Jana Ecker <[email protected]> Cc: Mark Winnik <[email protected]>, Jan Manzella <[email protected]> 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: [email protected]. 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
© Copyright 2024