REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, :30 PM 151 MARTIN STREET, CITY COMMISSION ROOM, BIRMINGHAM, MI

Transcription

1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, :30 PM 151 MARTIN STREET, CITY COMMISSION ROOM, BIRMINGHAM, MI A. Roll Call B. Review and Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting of May 23, 2018 C. Chairpersons Comments D. Review of the Agenda E. Old Business - Special Land Use Permits (Shell Gas Station / Dunkin Donuts) Request for approval of a Special Land Use Permit Amendment to allow for construction of small addition for a restroom and new signage (Postponed from May 23, 2018). F. Old Business - Site Plan Reviews (Shell Gas Station / Dunkin Donuts) Request for approval of a Revised Final Site Plan & Design to allow for construction of small addition for a restroom and new signage (Postponed from May 23, 2018). G. Study Session 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. Planning Board Rules of Procedure 2. Bistro Regulations 3. Retail Discussion H. Miscellaneous Business and Communications: a. Communications b. Administrative Approval Correspondence c. Draft Agenda for the next Regular Planning Board Meeting (June 27, 2018) d. Other Business I. Planning Division Action Items a. Staff Report on Previous Requests b. Additional Items from tonight's meeting J. Adjournment 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) , or (248) (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) o al (248) (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).

2 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM PLANNING BOARD ACTION ITEMS OF WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2018 Item Page SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT ("SLUP") AMENDMENT FINAL SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW E. Maple Rd, Social Kitchen - Application for SLUP Amendment and Final Site Plan and Design Review to allow changes to the exterior of the building Motion by Mr. Boyle Seconded by Mr. Williams that based on a review of the information presented tonight, the Planning Board recommends APPROVAL of the SLUP Amendment and Final Site Plan and Design Review for 225 E. Maple Rd., Social Kitchen, pending receipt of the following: 1. Historic District Commission approval to be required as the proposed bistro is located within the Central Business District Historic District; 2. The applicant complies with the requirements of City departments and ensures that the canopy projection is within the regulations of the City Motion carried, 5-2. SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT ("SLUP") FINAL SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW Woodward Ave., Hazel Ravines & Downtown (formerly The Stand) - Application for SLUP and Final Site Plan and Design Review to open a new restaurant serving alcoholic liquors, with exterior design changes and new signage proposed. 7 8 Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Ms. Whipple-Boyce that based on the site plans submitted, the Planning Board recommends APPROVAL to the City Commission of the SLUP, Final Site Plan and Design Review for Woodward Ave., Hunter, Ravines & Downtown with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must remove the evergreen shrub letter sign, as it is in the public right-of-way; 2. The applicant must bring the signage into compliance in regards to size, and reduce the number of signs to one or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals; 1

3 Birmingham Planning Board Proceedings May 23, 2018 Item Page 3. The applicant must correct the indoor/outdoor dining area plan to show 20 seats, or adjust the seating calculation to include a 22 seat patio; 4. The applicant must provide the location of all new lighting fixtures prior to City Commission approval; and 5. The applicant addresses the requests of all City Departments. Motion carried, 7-0. REZONING APPLICATION S. Old Woodward Ave. (former Mountain King) Request to rezone from B-3 and D-4 to B-3 and D-5 to allow a nine-story mixed-use building. Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Mr. Boyle to postpone consideration of the Rezoning Application, the Preliminary Site Plan Review, and the Community Impact Study for S. Old Woodward Ave. (former Mountain King) to Wednesday, June 27, Motion carried, 7-0. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW AND COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES ("CIS") Woodward Ave., Mixed-Use Building (vacant property) - Application for Preliminary Site Plan and CIS to permit new construction of a five-story mixed-use building (request for postponement to June 27, 2018) Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Ms. Whipple-Boyce to postpone consideration of the Preliminary Site Plan Review and CIS for Woodward Ave., mixed-use building, (vacant property) to June 27, Motion carried, 7-0. Motion by Mr. Koseck Seconded by Ms. Whipple-Boyce to nominate Robin Boyle and Stuart Jeffares to the Ad Hoc Master Plan Selection Committee Motion carried,

4 Birmingham Planning Board Proceedings May 23, 2018 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2018 City Commission Room 151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan Minutes of the regular meeting of the City of Birmingham Planning Board held on May 23, 2018.Chairman Scott Clein convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Present: Absent: Chairman Scott Clein; Board Members Stuart Jeffares, Bert Koseck, Daniel Share, Janelle Whipple-Boyce, Bryan Williams; Alternate Board Member Jason Ermeine Alternate Board Member Nasseen Ramin; Student Representatives Madison Dominato, Sam Fogel, Ellie McElroy Administration: Matthew Baka, Sr. Planner Jana Ecker, Planning Director Carole Salutes, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF May 9, 2018 Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Mr. Jeffares to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting of May 9, 2018 as presented. Motion carried, 5-0. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Williams, Jeffares, Boyle, Clein, Whipple-Boyce Nays: None Abstain: Ermeine, Koseck Absent: None CHAIRPERSON S COMMENTS Chairman Clein welcomed the board s new alternate, Jason Ermeine. 3

5 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The Chairman noted that with regard to S. Old Woodward Ave., the Mountain King site, the paperwork was not filed in a timely manner so the board will not discuss the rezoning, the Community Impact Study or the site plan tonight. However, this evening the developer will be allowed to present quick highlights of the project SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT ("SLUP") AMENDMENT FINAL SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW E. Maple Rd, Social Kitchen - Application for SLUP Amendment and Final Site Plan and Design Review to allow changes to the exterior of the building Ms. Ecker advised the subject site is located at 225 E. Maple Rd., between N. Old Woodward Ave. and Park St. The parcel is zoned B-4, Business-Residential and D-4 in the Downtown Overlay District. The applicant, Social Kitchen, is seeking an amendment to their SLUP. They are proposing to replace the existing retractable awnings covering the rooftop dining area with a new unenclosed rooftop canopy with wood pergola, retractable canvas panels (overhead only), new lighting, fans, and a fire suppression system. Other work proposed is the re-cladding of the existing canopy over the exit stairs leading to the via, relocation of service doors, new wall finishes on the rooftop, and new planters. There is no enclosure around the rooftop dining area. Finally, the applicant is proposing to paint the existing building a new color. Therefore the changes are mainly aesthetic. The number of seats will remain the same. Ms. Ecker stated that this is deemed a structure and an enclosure so the applicant will have to meet all of the Building Code requirements for a building. Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the applicant obtain a SLUP and approval from the City Commission to operate an establishment with a Bistro License within the City of Birmingham. Accordingly, the applicant is required to receive a recommendation from the Planning Board on the Final Site Plan and SLUP, and subsequently obtain approval from the City Commission for the Final Site Plan and SLUP Amendment. Historic District Commission approval will also be required, as the proposed bistro is located within the Central Business District Historic District. Design Review Ms. Ecker advised that the applicant is proposing to paint the entire exterior of the existing building in Benjamin Moore Historical Collection Chrome Green," and is proposing to replace the existing awning on the exterior stair in the via with a new fabric awning in ivory to match the existing canopy. In addition, the applicant is proposing numerous improvements to the rooftop dining area. The applicant proposes to relocate the existing service access door leading to the roof, and to install a new unenclosed canopy with a walnut finish pergola structure and rigid clear polycarbonate panels fastened over the wood structure, along with a retractable fabric ceiling beneath the canopy. 4

6 New pendant lighting is proposed to hang from the canopy, and LED strip lighting is proposed along both the east and west edges of the canopy structure. New fans are also proposed. In accordance with the request of the Fire Department, the applicant will also be installing a fire suppression system under the rooftop canopy structure. New lattice trim is proposed to be affixed to the exterior walls of the building on the rooftop, and to the north and south ends of the canopy structure, to be painted in Benjamin Moore Historical Collection Fairview Taupe." New furniture is also proposed for the rooftop dining area, as well as floor lighting and planters. It is not clear from the plans which tables are proposed to be bar height with stools and which are regular height dining tables and chairs. Mr. Roman Bonislawski, Ron and Roman Architects, said that it is time for a refresh of Social. The pergola style canopy structure has a polycarbonate sun screen underneath. Linear LED lighting gently casts light up into the wooden structure above. No changes are proposed for the main level downstairs or occupancy load. He will follow up with Mr. O Meara to make sure there is no pergola encroachment into the Maple Rd. right-of-way. In response to Mr. Boyle, Mr. Bonislawski said he is confident the plantings they have chosen will grow up along the posts. Chairman Clein took public comments on this matter at 7:53 p.m. Mr. Mitch Black, proprietor of Dick O Dows, 160 W. Maple Rd., said his concern as a business owner is that new establishments are allowed to exceed the original seating intent of the Bistro Ordinance which was to allow 55 seats and up to ten bar stools. At what point does the Planning Board take a look and decide this is not what they intended to do. Ms. Ecker noted they are in the process of tightening up on some of Mr. Black s points. Chairman Clein said the Planning Board will be reviewing the Bistro Regulations related to outdoor dining. For Ms. Whipple-Boyce, Mr. Bonislawski summarized they are not proposing any change from the way the street-level café is operating. The downstairs stays as it is, the building gets a paint job, the interior will get a little tweak that doesn t affect seating, and there is no permanent enclosure on the roof. Ms. Ecker reviewed the seating arrangement which adds up to 150 seats and is not being changed: Inside - 54 seats plus 10 at the bar; Via - 56 seats; Roof - 30 seats. Mr. Williams thought there should be discussion about code enforcement when the matter of Bistro Regulations comes back before the board. Mr. Boyle noted the City is investing a significant amount of money in improving Old Woodward Ave. and Maple Rd. He asked what is being done about the via. Ms. Ecker responded the City is not planning any changes to the via at this time. Mr. Boyle thought it is only fair that the City improve the vias when they get the opportunity, such as with a development like this. When the proposal for something like a mural comes back he will step up and ask for the City to consider what to do for the vias. Motion by Mr. Boyle 5

7 Seconded by Mr. Williams that based on a review of the information presented tonight, the Planning Board recommends APPROVAL of the SLUP Amendment and Final Site Plan and Design Review for 225 E. Maple Rd., Social Kitchen, pending receipt of the following: 1. Historic District Commission approval to be required as the proposed bistro is located within the Central Business District Historic District; 2. The applicant complies with the requirements of City departments and ensures that the canopy projection is within the regulations of the City. Mr. Koseck indicated that he will not support the motion. He has no issue with the proposed improvements, but his view is that when a SLUP comes back it should be looked at holistically. His issue is with the enclosure of the existing first floor addition in the via. When the weather is nice this is a really a large building and he would like to see other aspects of it come into what in his mind is compliance. Ms. Whipple-Boyce thought this a fantastic improvement but she is torn because of the enclosed patio that became enclosed with Isinglass. She sympathizes with the Class C License holders because the City is not delivering what it told them. Going forward, she is glad the board will study this further. At 8:10 p.m. the Chairman called for public comments on the motion. Mr. Jack Reinhart, who is involved with the 555 Building and also the Triple Nickel, commented on the way the City has approached the liquor licenses. In the last six months the Stand, Mitchells, and Café Via have gone out of business. Also he has heard that Hyde Park is going out. Triple Nickel struggles. The Chairman invited him to be present when the Planning Board talks about possible changes to the bistro regulations. Motion carried, 5-2. ROLLCALL VOTE Yeas: Boyle, Clein, Jeffares, Ermeine, Whipple-Boyce Nays: Koseck, Williams Absent: None SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT ("SLUP") FINAL SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW Woodward Ave., Hazel Ravines & Downtown (formerly The Stand) - Application for SLUP and Final Site Plan and Design Review to open a new restaurant serving alcoholic liquors, with exterior design changes and new signage proposed. Mr. Baka noted the subject site is located at Woodward Ave. on the southwest corner of Woodward Ave. and Maple Rd. The parcel is zoned B-4, Business-Residential and D-4 in the Downtown Overlay District. The applicant is proposing to make several design changes to the building including replacing awnings, adding planters/ landscaping, and reworking the vestibule. They are proposing to enlarge the bar and add three new banquet rooms to the dining area. There will be table tops along the windows on the north façade. 6

8 The proposed new restaurant, Hazel Ravines & Downtown, will replace the existing restaurant, The Stand. Chapter 10 of the Birmingham City Code requires that the applicant obtain a SLUP Amendment and approval from the City Commission to make changes to an establishment with an Economic Development Liquor License within the City of Birmingham. An Economic Development License does not restrict size nor does it require outdoor dining. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to obtain a recommendation from the Planning Board on the Final Site Plan and Design Review and SLUP, and then obtain approval from the City Commission for the Final Site Plan and Design Review, and SLUP. Design Review The applicant is proposing the following changes to the first floor restaurant space: 1. Replace six existing aluminum awnings with new fabric awnings (Sunbrella Forest Green ) on painted metal frames. 2. Rework landscaping in corner landscape beds with new proposed ground mounted sculptural signage letters (Pantone 396 C ) and new groundcover with landscaping lighting in the M-DOT right-of-way, as well as a new painted metal fence (Iron Oxide Steel Primer) behind the existing curb. Trellises will also be installed on the façade to support climbing Hydrangeas. 3. Remove the existing metal canopy over the west entrance and remove the glass storefront entry wall to convert the entry vestibule into an indoor/outdoor seating patio. The canopy will be replaced with a new fabric awning (Sunbrella Forest Green ) on a painted metal frame with new signage above. The new patio will have illuminated wall panels and new tile flooring (Ceramic Mosaic Hex Tile Cinnabar, Crisp Linen, Luminary Gold ). The applicant has submitted details and samples on the proposed design materials and colors. Signage Mr. Baka advised that the applicant is proposing signage along the replaced canopies at the northeast corner of the building, as well as over the new entry canopy on the west entrance. The proposed signs for the project are indicated at nine different locations. Seven of the new canopies have signage proposed, the large weathervane sculpture is considered a sign, and the hedges proposed to spell the initials of the restaurant would be considered a sign under the definition of a sign in the Sign Ordinance. Article 01 section 1.10 B (4) (d) states the following: Each business whose principal square footage is on the first story may have one sign per entry. The proposal does not meet these requirements. The applicant is located on the first floor; however they only have one entrance which permits only one sign. Article 01 section 1.10 B (4) states the following: A single external sign band or zone may be applied to the facade of a building between the first and second floors, provided that it shall be a maximum of 1.5 ft. in vertical dimension by any horizontal dimension. Woodward Avenue Address: The external sign band or zone shall be a maximum of 2 ft. in vertical dimension by any horizontal dimension. The proposal meets this requirement. The proposed canopy signs at the northeast corner involve six canopies with one word per canopy. The signs read Hunter Ravines & Downtown in the aforementioned Pantone 396 C flat yellow color. The total signage dimensions for the each set of signage (one on Woodward Ave. frontage and one on Maple Rd. frontage) is 7 ft. 1 in. wide by 5 ½ in. tall. There are six total signs, which equal sq. ft. of signage total. The signage located at the west entrance along Peabody St. is located on a canopy over the reworked entrance to the indoor/outdoor 7

9 dining area. The signage measures 10 ft. 1 in. wide by 1 ft. 2 in. tall. The west entrance canopy signage is proposed to be lit by an LED strip located at the bottom of the fascia. The landscaping beds located in the road berm along Woodward Ave. containing pruned evergreen shrub letters H, R, and D must also be considered a sign based on the definition of Sign given in Article 3, section 3.02 of the Sign Ordinance. The applicant must remove the evergreen shrub letter sign, as it is in the public right-of-way, remove the weathervane pole sign (or submit specifications showing dimensions equaling no greater than 30 sq. ft. per side and a maximum of 8 ft. tall), and reduce the number of signs to one or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals ( BZA ). Mr. Koseck received confirmation that the evergreen letter sign that is located in the M-DOT right-of-way would be subject to Birmingham s landscape standards, but would have to be approved by M-DOT. Mr. Roman Bonislawski, Ron and Roman Architects, explained they are not proposing to serve outside in the patio area. However, people are welcome to purchase food at the Grab and Go Market to be consumed there. The mosaic tiles and illuminated walls invite people into this casual spot. It is a public space for anyone to use. Inside they are eliminating one banquet room, keeping one and then creating a new banquet set-up for private functions. The rest of the changes on the interior will be a brand new, fresh, casual, Birmingham appropriate spot. The sculpture on the corner is an operable weathervane that works with the signage band so that people will notice it and be directed towards the entrance. It has always been a sore spot with them that the businesses that occur at this really important intersection cannot succeed. However, they are in agreement that this is probably the best opportunity to succeed. Responding to Ms. Whipple-Boyce, Mr. Bonislawski explained the picket fence shows as a traditional piece on the corner. Mr. Koseck noted that part of the problem with The Stand was that people could not see into it. With this proposal he feels the picket fence and the HRD plantings make the site look cluttered and they don t beckon him to come in. Mr. Bonislawski said with regard to the fence that part of what they do is to introduce a small component of shock value. The fence relates back to the neighborhood aspect of what the business is. The downtown feature is the trendier characteristic of the proposal and the ravines is the more eclectic, world traveled feature. In discussing why two previous restaurants on that site failed, Mr. Williams observed that he has eaten at both Zazios and The Stand and has had better meals elsewhere. What he disliked about both of them was the openness. So, to him what has been done inside is a significant improvement. Adding some private dining and meeting rooms is probably a good thing. Chairman Clein agreed with Mr. Koseck on the fence. He is very happy with the internal changes on the project but really dislikes the HRD landscape signage. He didn t think it would receive approval from the State. He didn t have an issue with the other proposed signage but did not like the weathervane. No one from the public had comments on the project at 9 p.m. 8

10 Ms. Whipple-Boyce thought the proposal is great and hopes that it succeeds. The interior layout is so much improved. She loves the patio where there will be tons of morning traffic. Then people will come back for afternoon meetings in the great little banquet rooms. Further, she supports the additional band signage on the building because she thinks it is essential and it will be up-lighted from below. However, she was not a huge fan of the landscaped HRD sign or the fence. Mr. Jeffares thought they are on the right track with making the dining area smaller. While he agrees with everybody on the HRD, he feels it would be cool to do something different with that space. Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Ms. Whipple-Boyce that based on the site plans submitted, the Planning Board recommends APPROVAL to the City Commission of the SLUP, Final Site Plan and Design Review for Woodward Ave., Hunter, Ravines & Downtown with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must remove the evergreen shrub letter sign, as it is in the public right-of-way; 2. The applicant must bring the signage into compliance in regards to size, and reduce the number of signs to one or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals; 3. The applicant must correct the indoor/outdoor dining area plan to show 20 seats, or adjust the seating calculation to include a 22 seat patio; 4. The applicant must provide the location of all new lighting fixtures prior to City Commission approval; and 5. The applicant addresses the requests of all City Departments. Motion carried, 7-0. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Williams, Whipple-Boyce, Boyle, Clein, Ermeine, Jeffares, Koseck Nays: None Absent: None 9

11 REZONING APPLICATION S. Old Woodward Ave. (former Mountain King) - Request to rezone from B- 3 and D-4 to B-3 and D-5 to allow a nine-story mixed-use building. As Chairman Clein mentioned before, all of the required information for the Application for rezoning was not submitted in time to meet the noticing requirements. Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Mr. Boyle to postpone consideration of the rezoning Application, the Preliminary Site Plan Review, and the Community Impact Study for S. Old Woodward Ave. (former Mountain King) to Wednesday, June 27, No one from the public had comments on the motion at 9:06 p.m. Motion carried, 7-0. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Williams, Boyle, Clein, Jeffares, Koseck, Ermeine, Whipple-Boyce Nays: None Absent: None Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Mr. Jeffares to waive Planning Board procedural rules tonight to allow consideration of two pre-application discussion items. Motion carried, 7-0. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Williams, Jeffares, Boyle, Clein, Koseck, Ermeine, Whipple-Boyce Nays: None Absent: None PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW AND COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES ("CIS") Woodward Ave., Mixed-Use Building (vacant property) - Application for Preliminary Site Plan and CIS to permit new construction of a five-story mixed-use building (request for postponement to June 27, 2018) Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Ms. Whipple-Boyce to postpone consideration of the Preliminary Site Plan Review and CIS for Woodward Ave., mixed-use building, (vacant property) to June 27, Motion carried, 7-0. VOICE VOTE 10

12 Yeas: Williams, Whipple-Boyce, Boyle, Clein, Ermeine, Jeffares, Koseck Nays: None Absent: None PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSIONS S. Old Woodward Ave. (former Mountain King) - Application for Preliminary Site Plan and CIS to permit new construction of a nine-story, mixed-use building Mr. Christopher Longe, architect representing S. Old Woodward Ave., was present with Mr. Duraid Markus, Managing Partner for the project. A 94 room hotel is proposed. Floors 1 through 5 are typical room size. Floors 6 and 7 are larger for apartments, and the 8th floor will be a condo. The idea is to have those three floors for extended stay. The top floor has an enclosed pool and sun deck along with a fitness area. Their parking requirement is 148 spaces. One hundred spaces are provided on-site, extending three levels below ground. There are four spaces in front on the street. Also, they have a parking agreement with the 555 Building for 35 cars. The entire first floor will be transparent. At the southwest corner there will be an open air dining facility for the adjacent bar and restaurant. The top three floors step back successively. Chairman Clein indicated that he was taken aback by the streetscape treatment on Hazel, particularly the valet operations. Also he was disappointed with the Woodward Ave. elevation and streetscape. Both locations need massive pedestrian improvements. He asked the applicants to rework them before he would be on board with those aspects of the proposal Cole - Renovation of existing building Mr. Jason Krieger, Krieger Klatt Architects, 1412 E. Eleven Mile Rd., was present with Nick and Andy Petcoff with LPH Ventures who recently purchased the property. Their hope is to improve the site and clean it up along with whatever streetscape treatments are required. Then they propose to move some tenants in and have time to plan a larger project. He ran through several slides to give the board an idea of the proposal. The goal is to split the building up for three different tenants. Currently there are 40 parking spaces on-site. Mr. Petcoff noted they have plans to re-develop the property at some point. Their current plan is to beautify the building and site, and get a couple of tenants in while they work to come up with a plan for the future. Mr. Boyle asked if the applicant could add some glazing on the west side of the building. Chairman Clein thought some windows toward the front to anchor the corner would be a big improvement. Also, the eastern drive seems very wide open. Maybe some islands or landscape could be added. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Communications 11

13 Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Mr. Koseck to receive and file a letter from Adkison, Need, Allen & Rentrop from Kelly A. Allen dated May 21, 2018 concerning the Morrie. Motion carried, 7-0. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Williams, Koseck, Boyle, Clein, Ermeine, Jeffares, Whipple-Boyce Nays: None Absent: None Ms. Ecker explained that at their last meeting the City Commission approved The Morrie without dancing. However, they told them that if they wanted dancing they would have to go back through the process and get a SLUP Amendment. So, they are requesting the Planning Board to suspend its Rules of Procedure to hear this application on June 13, Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Ms. Whipple-Boyce to suspend the Rules of Procedure to consider an amendment to the SLUP for The Morrie at the June 13, 2018 meeting. Mr. Boyle announced this won t get his vote. This is a small change to a proposal that the board has looked at and approved. To put them through this process again is just in his opinion overkill. Motion carried, 6-1. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Williams, Whipple-Boyce, Clein, Ermeine, Jeffares, Koseck Nays: Boyle Absent: None Ms. Ecker went on to advise that also at their last meeting the City Commission set up an Ad Hoc Master Plan Selection Committee and there are two spots for members of the Planning Board. The job of the committee will be to review all of the proposals that come in and make a recommendation as to who the City should select as its consultant. Mr. Boyle and Mr. Jeffares volunteered. Motion by Mr. Koseck Seconded by Ms. Whipple-Boyce to nominate Robin Boyle and Stuart Jeffares to the Ad Hoc Master Plan Selection Committee. Motion carried, 7-0. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Koseck, Whipple-Boyce, Boyle, Clein, Ermeine, Jeffares, Williams Nays: None Absent: None b. Administrative Approval Requests (none) c. Draft Agenda for the next Regular Planning Board Meeting of June 13,

14 Continuation of the Retail Discussion; Bistro discussion to consider limits on outdoor dining; The Shell Gas Station SLUP (sidewalk and bumpout for restroom); The Morrie; The Rules of Procedure. d. Other Business (none) PLANNING DIVISION ACTION ITEMS a. Staff report on previous requests (none) b. Additional items from tonight s meeting (none) ADJOURNMENT No further business being evident, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m. Jana L. Ecker Planning Director 13

15 MEMORANDUM Planning Division DATE: June 5, 2018 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Board Jana L. Ecker, Planning Director Woodward Ave Birmingham Shell Final Site Plan and Special Land Use Permit Amendment (changes in blue) The 0.34 acre subject site, Woodward Avenue, is located at the corner of Woodward and Chapin. The applicant is seeking a Special Land Use Permit Amendment to relocate the bathroom within the building, which will include a small addition of square footage to the building. The total added area to the building is roughly 79 sq. ft. at the south-western portion of the building, facing the parking lot. The addition will displace the ice and propane storage machines, which are proposed to be relocated to the side of the building, adjacent to the rear parking area. On January 24, 2018 the applicant was reviewed by the Planning Board for the addition of a new bathroom and new signage. The Planning Board recommended approval of the SLUP amendment to the City Commission with the condition that they make modifications to the site that would compensate for the lost pedestrian path that would be displaced by the addition along the front façade. However, the applicant had not yet devised a solution to the issue by the time they reached the City Commission for the public hearing. At that time the City Commission voted to send the applicant back to the Planning Board to resolve the issue so that they could review a complete plan that would not be subject to further change after the public hearing. Accordingly, the applicant has now submitted a new plan that proposes to apply blue paint striping to the area that leads from the handicapped space to the front entrance of the building. On April 11, 2018 the applicant appeared before the Planning Board for review of the proposed pedestrian path that consisted of blue striping along the edge of the raised sidewalk abutting the building. At that time the Planning Board postponed the review and instructed the applicant to revise the plans so the existing raised curb is extended and reestablishes a pedestrian walkway along the building as currently exists. The applicant submitted a revised site plan that indicated an expanded sidewalk with a curb in the area by the new bathroom. On May 9, 2018, the Planning Board once again postponed the SLUP application to June 13, 2018 as the applicant had not yet submitted a detailed site plan as requested by the board.

16 At this time, the applicant has now submitted an engineered site plan including all topographic details on the site and the proposed sidewalk and ramps in the vicinity of the new addition to the building. The applicant has also moved a portion of the outdoor storage from the southern elevation of the building to behind the screen wall that screens the row of parking along the alley from Woodward Avenue. Finally, the applicant has provided a building elevation for the west elevation to show the existing ramp conditions and how the grades will match with the proposed sidewalk addition. 1.0 Land Use and Zoning 1.1 Existing Land Use The land use at this parcel is commercial. 1.2 Zoning The parcel is zoned B2-B, General Business. 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, including the proposed 2016 Regulating Plan zones. 1.4 North South East West Existing Land Use Commercial Commercial Residential Commercial Existing Zoning District B2-B, General Business B2-B, General Business R4, Two Family Residential B2-B, General Business Downtown Overlay Zoning District N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.0 Setback and Height Requirements Please see attached zoning compliance summary sheet for detailed setback and height requirements. 3.0 Screening and Landscaping 3.1 Dumpster Screening No changes proposed. 3.2 Parking Lot Screening No changes proposed.

17 3.3 Mechanical Equipment Screening No changes proposed. 3.4 Landscaping No changes proposed. 3.5 Streetscape No changes proposed. 4.0 Parking, Loading and Circulation 4.1 Parking No changes proposed. 4.2 Loading No changes proposed. 4.3 Vehicular Circulation and Access No changes proposed. 4.4 Pedestrian Circulation and Access The proposed addition will displace the propane and bagged ice display units, and decrease the width of the current sidewalk along the front of the building where it will be located. The relocation of the propane and ice display units will decrease the sidewalk width significantly, but the applicant has not submitted dimensions for the two units. The proposed addition of the windshield washer fluid display will decrease the width of the sidewalk to 3 ft. 10 in. where it is proposed to be placed. The applicant is now proposing to widen the raised sidewalk from the south end of the building across the front of the building to create a 5 walking path from the handicapped space to the front door of the business. The expanded sidewalk includes an ADA ramp at the south end of the building where the handicapped space is to provide access for those with mobility issues. The applicant has now submitted revised plans to show that the grade of the new sidewalk extension will match the existing sidewalk grade adjacent to the existing door to the building. The ramp for entry into the building is a small slope up from the parking lot grade where the sidewalk edge starts to the entry door threshold. The slope slowly tapers off to either side of the door and will not provide any slope issues or obstructions for those in a wheelchair or otherwise of limited mobility. In addition, the plans now show the relocation of a portion of the outdoor storage from the south elevation of the building to alongside the screen wall that screens the alley access parking from sight on Woodward. This will narrow the walkway along the screen wall, however it will now provide a clear walkway for adjacent neighbors to access the site from the alley. 5.0 Lighting The applicant is not proposing any changes to the lighting of the property. 6.0 Outdoor Display Standards

18 The proposed addition to the front of the building will displace the propane and bagged ice displays that currently exist in the space. The applicant is proposing to relocate the display units to the south side of the building adjacent to the rear parking area, as well as add a windshield washer fluid display to the front of the building. According to Article 9, Section 9.02 of the Zoning Ordinance, Outdoor Display is defined as the placement of any item(s) outside a building for decorative display and/or accessible to the public for the purpose of sale, rent, lease or exhibit. Therefore, the propane and ice storage, as well as the proposed display for windshield washer fluid along the front of the building shall be regulated as outdoor displays. Article 4, Section 4.67 outlines the requirements for an outdoor display in the B2-B zoning district. The proposed outdoor storage meets several of these standards, but falls short in a few key areas: 1. Outdoor displays shall not exceed a maximum of 4 feet in height. The applicant must confirm that the ice and propane storage units are no more than 4 feet in height, or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The submitted site plan does show the proposed windshield washer fluid display to be a maximum of four feet tall, meeting the Ordinance. 2. Furniture or shelving used to display goods outside shall be made of finished metal or wood or a material of comparable quality and maintained in a good condition. The existing ice and propane storage units are constructed of metal, but the applicant has indicated that the proposed windshield washer fluid display will be constructed of plastic. The applicant must submit plans showing a windshield washer fluid display unit constructed of metal or wood, or a material of comparable quality, or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. 3. An unobstructed path not less than 5 feet in width shall be continuously maintained for pedestrian access to all business entrances and no point of access or egress from any building shall be blocked at any time. Both the relocation of the ice and propane display units and the new windshield washer fluid display will subtract from the required 5 feet required for pedestrian access. The applicant must submit plans showing an unobstructed continuously maintained 5 foot path for pedestrian access, or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

19 7.0 Departmental Reports 7.1 Engineering Division The Engineering Department has no concerns at this time. My understanding is that this is compliant with the ADA code. Comments remain unchanged. 7.2 Department of Public Services No comments have been provided at this time, but will be provided by January 24, DPS has no concerns. 7.3 Fire Department No comments have been provided at this time, but will be provided by January 24, The fire department has no concerns with the walkway. 7.4 Police Department No comments have been provided at this time, but will be provided by January 24, The police department has no conerns. 7.5 Building Division The Building Department has examined the plans for the proposed project referenced above. The plans were provided to the Planning Department for site plan review purposes only and present conceptual elevations and floor plans. Although the plans lack sufficient detail to perform a code review, the following comments are offered for Planning Board and/or Design Review Board and applicant consideration: 8.0 Design Review 1. The proposed addition is projecting into the accessible route (sidewalk) between the existing barrier free parking space and the entrance to the building. The accessible route cannot be reduced to less than inches. 2. The plans do not include proposed changes to the interior of the building. It appears that the existing toilet room located between the service counter and kitchen will be removed and the service counter made larger. The plans will need to detail these changes. No additional comments have been received. The proposed 79 sq. ft. addition to the south-west portion of the building will be for the relocation of a restroom to allow for more counter space for the establishment. The applicant has indicated on the site plan that the addition will be constructed with the same brick and paint as the existing building. The applicant has not submitted the elevations or material specifications necessary to complete a design review. The applicant must submit scaled and colored elevations and material specifications for design review. 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:

20 (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 nor 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 Recommendation Based on the comments of the City Commission, the Planning Division finds that the expectation of the City Commission is that an ADA compliant sidewalk would be designed for their review. The proposed striping does not appear to be sufficient to meet that expectation. Accordingly, the Planning Division recommends that the Planning Board POSTPONE the Final Site Plan and Special Land Use Permit Amendment for Woodward Ave Birmingham Shell pending receipt of the following: (1) The applicant submit plans showing an unobstructed continuously maintained 5 foot path for pedestrian access that comply with the request of the City Commission. The applicant has submitted a plan that extends the raised sidewalk out from the new bathroom addition to provide a 5 unobstructed sidewalk at that point. The applicant has now provided plans that show an unobstructed ADA compliant path from the entry door to the building to the ADA parking spaces on site. Accordingly, the Planning Division recommends that the Planning Board recommend approval to the City Commission of the SLUP Amendment and Final Site Plan approval for Woodward Avenue.

21 11.0 Sample Motion Language Motion to recommend approval to the City Commission of the SLUP Amendment and Final Site Plan approval for Woodward Avenue Birmingham Shell. Motion to recommend POSTPONEMENT of the Final Site Plan and Special Land Use Permit Amendment for Woodward Ave Birmingham Shell pending receipt of the following: (1) The applicant submits revised plans showing an unobstructed path for pedestrian access to the front door. OR Motion to recommend APPROVAL the Final Site Plan and Special Land Use Permit Amendment to the City Commission for Woodward Ave Birmingham Shell. OR Motion to recommend the DENIAL of the Final Site Plan and Special Land Use Permit Amendment to the City Commission for Woodward Ave Birmingham Shell for the following reasons:

22 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2018 City Commission Room 151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan Minutes of the regular meeting of the City of Birmingham Planning Board held on January 24, 2018.Chairman Scott Clein convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Present: Chairman Scott Clein; Board Members Robin Boyle, Stuart Jeffares, Bert Koseck, Vice-Chairperson Gillian Lazar, Janelle Whipple-Boyce, Bryan Williams Also Present: Nasseem Ramin Absent: Alternate Board Member Daniel Share; Student Representatives Ariana Afrakhteh, Isabella Niskar Administration: Matthew Baka, Sr. Planner Nicholas Dupuis, Planning Intern Carole Salutes, Recording Secretary FINAL SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT ("SLUP") Woodward Ave. (Shell Gas Station/Dunkin Donuts) Request for approval of a Revised Final Site Plan and Design to allow for construction of small addition for a restroom and new signage Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Ms. Lazar to receive and file the one-page document from Design Studio Interiors Planning. Project: Birmingham Gas Station Exterior Building Elevations. Motion carried, 7-0. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Williams, Lazar, Boyle, Clein, Jeffares, Koseck, Whipple-Boyce Nays: None Absent: None Mr. Baka advised the 0.34 acre subject site is located at the corner of Woodward Ave. and Chapin. The gas station was formerly a Citgo that was renovated several years ago and is now a Shell/Dunkin Donuts. The applicant is seeking a SLUP amendment to relocate the bathroom within the building, which will include a small addition of square footage to the building. The

23 total added area is roughly 79 sq. ft. at the southwestern portion of the building, facing the parking lot. The addition will displace the ice and propane storage machines, which are proposed to be relocated to the side of the building, adjacent to the rear parking area. The applicant must confirm that the ice and propane storage units are no more than 4 ft. in height, or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA"). Design Review The proposed 79 sq. ft. addition to the southwest portion of the building will be for the relocation of a restroom to allow more counter space for the establishment. The applicant has indicated on the site plan that the addition will be constructed with the same brick and paint as the existing building. The applicant has submitted scaled and colored elevations and material specifications for Design Review. Responding to Mr. Boyle, Mr. Baka stated that Beer and Wine signage was previously approved by the Planning Board. The Liquor signs are considered window signage as long as it is within 18 sq. ft. Therefore, the signs are compliant. Mr. John Abbro with ADG, Farmington Hills, MI was present for Scott and Chris Barbat, the gas station owners. He explained the proposed addition will match the building design. Mr. Chris Barbat indicated the reason for the addition is to expand the counter in order to relocate the spirits from the sales area to behind the counter where customers can't get to them. He asked to exchange the Beer and Wine channel letter sign with a liquor sign in the same style so they can get rid of the vinyl Liquor stickers on the windows. The Chairman said he would be comfortable with an Administrative Approval for that, assuming tonight's proposal gets approved and everything else is in compliance. Mr. Barbat added that relocating the bathroom to the front south side of the building results in a better flow of traffic where there is no conflict between the restroom line and the Dunkin Donuts line. As stated, it also allows them to take the spirits off the floor and locate them behind the counter which is safer. Chairman Clein took public comments at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Bob Chodum, 1408 Chapin, stated that construction of the gas station occurred after 7 p.m. week nights and on Sundays. The construction just about took over Chapin and he didn't have anywhere to park. The gas station is very close to residences and he feels it is too big for their neighborhood. Signs at the bicycle shop say to unload bicycles on Chapin and they are on City sign posts. Ms. Joan Sutherland who also lives at 1408 Chapin asked if the proposal will alter parking at the gas station because they already park on her street and too close to the intersection. Mr. Baka said the proposed construction will not displace any parking. Mr. Barbat stated they do not allow any of their employees to park in the street. They must park on the property. The small addition will not take out any of the parking spots. He will be very diligent in making sure

24 the dumpster is always closed. This addition should be wrapped up within a week and in no way will they work before or after business hours. Ms. Whipple-Boyce noted that if construction takes place other than from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday the residents could notify the Police Dept. Mr. Williams advised that the residents could attempt to handle some of the excess parking by petitioning for parking permits on their street. Also, they could pursue with the Police Dept. adding signs restricting right turns coming out of the gas station onto Chapin. Motion by Ms. Whipple-Boyce Seconded by Mr. Boyle to recommend APPROVAL the Final Site Plan and Special Land Use Permit amendment to the City Commission for Woodward Ave., Birmingham Shell, with the following conditions: (1) The applicant confirm that the ice and propane storage units are no more than 4 ft. in height, or obtain a variance from the BZA; (2) The applicant meet the requirements of all City Departments. Motion carried VOICE VOTE Yeas: Whipple-Boyce, Boyle, Clein, Jeffares, Koseck, Lazar, Williams Nays: None Absent: None

25 BIRMINGHAM CITY COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 12, 2018 MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 151 MARTIN 7:30 P.M PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FINAL SITE PLAN & DESIGN AND A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT WOODWARD SHELL GAS STATION Mayor Harris opened the public hearing at 8:53 p.m. Senior Planner Baka reported the applicant: Received a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) from the City Commission on September 22, Seeks an amendment to the existing SLUP to allow them to construct a small addition to the building to allow for a new accessible 79 sq. ft. bathroom. Will bring all outdoor storage into compliance with the outdoor storage regulation ordinance passed since the granting of the original SLUP. Was approved for a SLUP amendment by the Planning Board on January 28, 2018 providing: o The ice and propane storage units do not exceed 4 ; and o Compliance with the requests of City Departments. Plans to match the brick and exterior appearance to the current building. Propane and ice storage will go around the side of the building, and would be stored on black, metal racks that would be no taller than 4. Senior Planner Baka told Commissioner Sherman that: Window signage for businesses on Woodward is permitted at the rate of 18 sq. ft. per frontage. Some proposed window signage changes did not go before the Planning Board because the information was not yet available. Changes in window signage, however, do not require permit or approval from the City. Commissioner Sherman asked to see the proposed window signage. Senior Planner Baka provided it, and stated he did not originally include it in the Commission Packet since the plans had not been seen by the Planning Board first. Applicant Chris Barbat: Appeared before the Commission and explained that the proposed sign changes had not been provided to the Planning Board because they had not been ready. Told Commissioner Hoff that the south side of the building is recessed, which means the bathroom will not extend much farther beyond the rest of the building. Currently the space is empty storage, and access to the restroom will be interior to the building. The purpose of the addition is to alleviate congestion between the Dunkin Donuts line and the line for the restroom. The restroom does not remain locked. Commissioner Sherman reiterated that all the proposed changes should have been submitted to the Planning Board at once for consideration as part of the SLUP amendment.

26 Planning Director Ecker confirmed for Commissioner Nickita that: The sidewalk at Woodward would need to be expanded in order to meet the ADA requirements of a 5 width. The expansion would fall under the SLUP amendment requirement that there be compliance with the requests of City Departments. The plans would not be approved without the sidewalk expansion. Commissioner Nickita replied that the plans need to specifically reflect how the applicant will build an ADA-compliant sidewalk. Planning Director Ecker stated that any method of bringing the sidewalk into ADAcompliance would be sufficient for the Planning Board. Mr. Barbat confirmed for Commissioner DeWeese that the two large vinyl signs in the window reading Liquor will be replaced by smaller signs within the gas station. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:07 p.m. MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Hoff, seconded by Commissioner Boutros: To approve the Final Site Plan & Design and a Special Land Use Permit Amendment at Woodward to allow the addition of a new accessible bathroom to the existing Shell gasoline service station as recommended by the Planning Board on January 24, Commissioner DeWeese specified that the applicant would be approved pursuant to all the discussion that occurred before the Commission this evening. Commissioner Nickita reiterated concern at the lack of clarity regarding how the sidewalk would become ADA-compliant, since different strategies of rebuilding the sidewalk would have very different outcomes for the layout of the parcel. Commissioner Nickita agreed with Commissioner Sherman that all of this information should have been included as part of the SLUP amendment. Commissioner Hoff asked whether City staff would track ADA-compliance on this issue. Mayor Harris asked whether City staff would only track ADA-compliance, or whether City staff would track some of Commissioner Nickita s concerns as well. Senior Planner Baka told Mayor Harris that City staff would track, in addition to ADAcompliance, pedestrian flow, accessibility from all the parking spots, and car safety and maneuverability that result from the parcel changes.

27 Commissioner Sherman stated that this SLUP amendment should go back before the Planning Board for further review since the plans, as submitted, are incomplete. Commissioner Nickita agreed with Commission Sherman. Commissioner Nickita continued that incomplete SLUP amendment requests should not appear before the Commission; all relevant information should be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Board first. VOTE: Yeas, 7 Nays, 0 Absent, 0 City Manager Valentine stated he would get this issue back before the Planning Board as quickly as possible.

28 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2018 City Commission Room 151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan Minutes of the regular meeting of the City of Birmingham Planning Board held on March 28, 2018.Chairman Scott Clein convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Present: Chairman Scott Clein; Board Members Robin Boyle, Stuart Jeffares, Bert Koseck, Janelle Whipple-Boyce, Bryan Williams; Alternate Board Member Daniel Share; Student Representative Ellie McElroy (arrived at 8:35 p.m.) Also Present: Absent: Alternate Board Member Nasseen Ramin; Student Representatives Madison Dominato, Sam Fogel Administration: Brooks Cowan, Planner Jana Ecker, Planning Director Carole Salutes, Recording Secretary FINAL SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT ("SLUP") Woodward Ave. Shell Gas Station Ms. Ecker explained the 0.34 acre subject site is located at the corner of Woodward Ave. and Chapin. The applicant is seeking a SLUP Amendment to relocate the restroom within the building, which will include a small 79 sq. ft. addition at the southwestern portion of the building, facing the parking lot. The addition will displace the ice and propane storage machines, which are proposed to be relocated to the side of the building, adjacent to the rear parking area. On January 24, 2018 the application was reviewed by the Planning Board for the addition of a new restroom and new signage. However it bumped out in the front and cut into the pedestrian walk along the front of the store. The Planning Board recommended approval of the SLUP amendment to the City Commission with the condition that they make modifications to the site that would address the walking path along the front to the Commission's satisfaction.

29 However, the applicant had not yet devised a solution to the issue by the time they reached the City Commission for the public hearing. At that time, the City Commission voted to send the applicant back to the Planning Board to resolve the issue so that the Commission could review a complete plan that would not be subject to further change after the public hearing. Accordingly, the applicant has now submitted a new plan that meets ADA standards and proposes to apply blue paint striping to the area that leads from the handicapped space to the front entrance of the building. That is the only thing that has changed since the last time the applicant was before this board. However, Ms. Ecker did not think this is what the Commission had in mind. She thought they wanted a final plan that would bump out the sidewalk and create a raised pedestrian path separate from the parking lot. Chairman Clein was concerned that the sidewalk terminates directly in the flair of the ramp and the flair is not an accessible route. Therefore, the route doesn't get a person to the door. Also, there are no dimensions related to the barrier-free space. He doesn't think the plan is adequate or that it meets Code. Further, he has serious concerns about the ice and propane storage location with no details or dimensions of the parking space. Ms. Ecker noted that one of the comments the Planning Dept. had is that it is very common for people to pull up along the curb, park there, and run into the store. The path doesn't really stop them from doing that. Therefore, the path may be blocked by a parked car. Mr. Chris Barbat, the business owner, addressed the board's concerns: The striping is not adequate even though it meets Code. He proposed stamped concrete in a different color and a ramp from the parking spot to the stamped concrete area. In terms of the propane and ice storage, they complied with having each one of the boxes 4 ft. in height. They moved them to the current location which isn't a good idea because it is a walkway from the alley. He suggested moving them behind the fence which is out of site, does not obstruct vehicle doors opening and closing, and opens up the whole pathway to the rear of the building. Mr. Koseck thought whether the path is striped or stamped concrete, people will be parking there. A curb would define the area. However, Mr. Barbat was concerned that a curb would prevent cars from turning to go north. They might have to stop, reverse, and go back around. Chairman Clein stated he does not want to see cars driving through the striping and he doesn't want to see cars parked there; it is for pedestrians, particularly pedestrians that are facing physical challenges. Mr. Jeffares noted there is an area in front of the building that goes down to 2 ft., which is too narrow. It could be made 3 ft. or so by adding extra concrete. Chairman Clein agreed and it is less money for the applicant. He wanted to see that change and also confirmation that they are showing the proper striping for the barrier-free spaces and that they are in compliance. Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Mr. Boyle to postpone consideration of Woodward Ave., Birmingham Shell, to April 25, 2018.

30 Motion carried, 7-0. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Williams, Boyle, Clein, Jeffares, Koseck, Share, Whipple-Boyce Nays: None Absent: None Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Mr. Koseck to suspend the rules for the Planning Board meeting of April 25th to consider more than five items. Motion carried, 7-0. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Williams, Koseck, Boyle, Clein, Jeffares, Share, Whipple-Boyce Nays: None Absent: None

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41 BIRMINGHAM GAS STATION SITE PLAN WOODWARD AVE., BIRMINGHAM, MI Adg D E S I G N S T U D I O I N T E R I O R S P L A N N I N G ABRO DESIGN GROUP, INC NORTHWESTERN HWY. SUITE 310 FARMINGTON HILLS, MI P F PROJECT: BIRMINGHAM GAS STATION -GAS STATION RENOVATIONS- SERVICE COUNTER 2 PROPANE STORAGE WOODWARD AVE., BIRMINGHAM, MI SHEET TITLE: 1 ICE STORAGE. SITE PLAN A B H J 5' 5' OUTDOOR BLACK METAL WIRE SHELVING 6' WIDE X 1' DEEP X NO MORE THAN 4' HIGH. MADE FOR WINDSHIELD WASHER FLUID. EXISTING ELEVATED CONC. DRIVE FLUSH W/ ADA RAMP PROPOSED CONC. WALKWAY FLUSH W/ EXISTING WALK PROPOSED ADA RAMP ' DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY DATE: ISSUE: CLIENTS REVIEW REVISION NO REVISION NO. 2 THESE PLANS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF ABRO DESIGN GROUP, INC. THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE MODIFIED, REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION CONSENT OF ABRO DESIGN GROUP, INC. PROJECT NO: north SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" SHEET NO: S-100 C COPYRIGHT 2017 ABRO DESIGN GROUP, INC.

42 MEMORANDUM Planning Division DATE: May 31, 2018 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Board Members Jana Ecker, Planning Director Planning Board Rules of Procedure On December 4, 2017, the City Commission reviewed and approved the Special Land Use Permit ( SLUP ) and Final Site Plan & Design Review for Woodward to allow Tide Dry Cleaners to open a storefront. During this review, several questions were raised by Commissioners and neighbors regarding the layout and proximity of adjacent properties, and the potential impact of the drive in dry cleaning facility on the surrounding property owners. At the end of the meeting, Commissioner Nickita specifically requested that the Planning Board review the existing submittal requirements for site plan reviews and SLUP reviews, and to determine if amendments should be made to add additional details of the subject site and/or adjacent sites to provide context for discussion. This direction to the Planning Board was provided by the City Manager. Accordingly, on March 14, 2018, the Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendments to Article 7, section 7.26 and section 7.34 to require all property lines, buildings and structures on adjacent properties within 200 of a subject site to be marked on the site plan drawings submitted. After discussion of the comments made at the Long Range Planning meeting, and previous Planning Board meetings, the board passed a motion to recommend approval of the ordinances to the City Commission. On April 23, 2018, the City Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendments, and voted to approve the proposed changes. As a result of the discussion at that meeting, the City Manager directed the Planning Board to amend the Rules of Procedure to incorporate the new submittal requirements, and to also add the new requirements to the existing Planning Board applications. On May 9, 2018, the Planning Board discussed amending the Rules of Procedure to comply with the new site plan submittal requirements approved by the City Commission. The board reviewed draft revisions prepared by the Planning Division that incorporated the new submittal requirements. Given the length of time since the last review of the Rules of Procedure, the Planning Board also discussed amending other provisions, and verifying that all references to the Open Meetings Act remained correct. Also, in Article VI Code of Ethics, the board

43 suggested that the third clause dealing with ethics standards be revised to require compliance with the City s Ethics Ordinance which was not in place when the rules were last updated. Finally, the Planning Board requested that the required submittal language on all application forms match the exact wording used in the Rules of Procedure to eliminate confusion. Accordingly, please find attached a revised draft of the Rules of Procedure with the proposed changes requested marked in blue type for additions and in strike through text for deletions. A sample revised application form is also attached for your review and comment. Once all language has been finalized, the Planning Division will update each application form with the new submittal requirements. Please note that at least five votes are required to amend the Rules of Procedure. Suggested Action: To amend the Planning Board s Rules of Procedure as attached to require aerial photos and to require that all property lines, buildings and structures and other details for adjacent properties within 200 of a subject site be marked on the site plan drawings submitted.

44 Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 STUDY SESSION 2. Planning Board Rules of Procedure Ms. Ecker recalled the City Commission recently approved ordinance amendments for Site Plan Review requirements to require additional information on adjoining properties. There was some discussion about making this very clear in the application process. As a result of the discussion at that meeting, the City Manager directed the Planning Board to amend the Rules of Procedure to incorporate the new submittal requirements, and also toadd the new requirements to the existing Planning Board applications. After going through the Rules of Procedure, Ms. Ecker said that she has recommended a few other changes: Article II-Meetings (F) lists the order of business at Planning Board meetings. She removed historic and non-historic. Also, she added rezoning applications. Article II-Meetings (H) "Community Development Director" was changed to "Planning Director" and "quarterly" was changed to "twice per calendar year." Article III-Procedure (B) (2) talks about the supporting data that has to be submitted with an application. That has been updated with the language in the ordinance amendments that were just passed. Also, interior floor plans; a landscape and photometric plan; and current aerial photos of the site were added to that section. It was discussed that even though interior floor plans are required to be submitted with an application, in many cases the floor plan is changed after the fact. Also, what can be seen of the interior from outside has been an issue. The City has not stopped businesses from putting up blinds. Mr. Boyle cautioned about imposing requirements within people's buildings. Ms. Whipple-Boyce wondered if there is a way to approach this by describing to the applicant that what is seen from the public space needs to be attractive. Chairman Clein noted they are talking about something related to an ordinance amendment as opposed to what the board wants to see. Chairman Clein noticed that the list of required attachments on the applications doesn't match the list in the Rules of Procedure. Mr. Boyle suggested that in Article III-Procedure (B) (1) and (2) reference what is found in the chart as opposed to putting it down twice. However, Ms. Ecker was not sure she would want to take the supporting data out of the Rules of Procedure, but the two should be the same. The application ought to be consistent with the Rules. Chairman Clein further noticed that particularly in the last three months the board has seen some rough submittals. He wondered whether the board has any desire to be more specific in the Rules to say that they want a current topographical and utility signed survey of the project site that includes properties within 200 ft. of the subject site as well. Mr. Share agreed that sometimes the data is slapdash. He wastrying to figure out how people could address that without spending thousands of dollars to produce a survey of a quarter mile

45 radius. Ms. Ecker explained that when applicants come in for their Building Permit, sealeddrawings must be submitted which are then routed to the Building Dept. for review. Therefore Mr. Boyle concluded that applicants are not being asked to do something in addition: they are just being asked to include the survey with their application. However, that information is not required for every site plan. Mr. Share observed that the board always has the right to ask the applicant to come back with more information. Mr. Share asked that staff check the following: Article IV-Notification of Meetings, Whether 18 hour posting tracks the Open Meetings Act. Article V- Citizen Participation, Paragraph four doesn t clearly state that the Chair can limit the amount of time that a public comment speaker is allowed speak. Also, in the very last sentence in Article V, list a more forgiving standard for expelling a person than breach of the peace. Article VI-Code of Ethics (3), simply say comply with the City s Ethics Ordinance. In (8), take out promote individual or special interests at the expense and/or dignity of community planning and replace with serve the public good and not any individual members. There was consensus for staff to come back on June 13 with language that achieves the board s purpose. Accordingly, a draft of the existing Rules of Procedure with the proposed changes marked will be brought back. Five votes are required to amend the Rules of Procedure.

46 PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, MICHIGAN RULES OF PROCEDURE Article I - Organization A. The Planning Board shall annually at a regular meeting in April elect a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson to hold office for one year and until their successors are appointed and qualify. No one individual shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive years as Chairperson or for more than three (3) consecutive years as Vice-Chairperson. The City Planner or his or her authorized representative shall act as Secretary and shall appoint a Clerk to record the proceedings. B. The Chairman shall preside at all meetings of the Planning Board. In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman shall preside, and in the absence of both, if a quorum shall be present, a Chairman shall be designated by a majority of the members of the Planning Board present at the meeting. The presiding officer, subject to these rules, shall decide all points of order or procedure, in accordance with the rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. C. The Secretary shall maintain the minutes of the Planning Board's proceedings, shall have custody of all records of the Planning Board; shall supervise all of the clerical work of the Planning Board; and perform such further duties as may be requested by the Planning Board. Article II - Meetings A. All meetings of the Planning Board shall be open to the public and any person or his duly constituted representative shall be entitled to appear and be heard on any matter applicable to the business at hand before the Planning Board makes its decision. B. Regular Planning Board meetings shall be held on the 2nd and 4th Wednesday of the month at 7:30 P.M. at the Birmingham Municipal Building, 151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan. The meeting held on the second Wednesday of each month is to be reserved for long-range planning activities, matters related to the Planning Board's priority list and specific requests from the City Commission. The meeting held on the fourth Wednesday of each month is to be devoted to Preliminary Site Plan, Final Site Plan and Design Reviews, Special Land Use Permit Reviews, public hearings, specific requests from the City Commission, and other matters requiring the Planning Board's review. Meetings will end promptly at 11:00 p.m. Meetings may be extended in their duration up to 12:00 midnight upon the affirmative vote of four (4) Planning Board Members. C. Five (5) members of the Planning Board may suspend any rule of procedure including the date or time of regular meetings.

47 Planning Board Rules of Procedure Page 2 of 5 D. A special meeting may be called by the Chairman or any two (2) members of the Planning Board upon twenty-four (24) hours notice to each member of the Planning Board. E. Four (4) members of the Planning Board shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of its business. The concurring affirmative vote of four (4) members of the Planning Board shall be required for approval of plans before the Planning Board and for review or for adoption of any resolution, motion or other action by the Planning Board. F. The order of business at the Planning Board meetings shall be as follows: 1. Roll Call. 2. Review of the minutes of the previous meeting. 3. Review of the Agenda. 4. Study Session. 5. Unfinished Business. 6. Special Land Use Permit Review. 7. Historic Site Plan Review. 8. Site Plan and Design Reviews, Non-Historic. 9. Rezoning Applications. 10. Meeting Open to the Public for Items not on the printed Agenda. 11. Miscellaneous Business and Communications. 12. Adjournment. G. Historic Site Plan Reviews may be held at a joint meeting with the Historic District and Design Review Commission or separately. The Community Development Planning Director shall determine the need, date, and time for any such joint meetings. H. The Planning Board agenda for the meeting at which site plans and special land use permit requests are discussed, shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) review items (historic and non-historic), including those tabled items which may be carried over from a preceding meeting. Placing a limitation upon the number of items to be accommodated on the Planning Board agenda is necessary to afford both Planning Board members and staff sufficient opportunity to review proposed plans and existing site conditions prior to the meeting, as well as to provide each petitioner's project an adequate, unhurried, collective review by all of the Planning Board members at the meeting itself. Petitions that require consideration of a proposed Cluster Development or Community Impact Study will be considered as separate items. Petitions that require a Special Land Use Permit will be heard in conjunction with the site plan review and will not be considered as separate items. The items to be placed on the agenda will be determined by the Community Development Department Planning Director and the Planning Board chairperson. Joint meetings of the City Commission and the Planning Board shall be held at least quarterly twice per calendar year at a time to be designated by the Mayor, and it shall be the duty of the Mayor to call such meetings. H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2018\May 9, 2018\Extra Docs\6A - PB RULES OF PROCEDURE doc

48 Planning Board Rules of Procedure Page 3 of 5 Article III Procedure A. The Planning Board shall have the responsibility for Site Plan and Design Review, and Special Land Use Permit Review, as outlined in Chapter 126 of the City Code. It shall be the function of the Planning Board to pass upon all matters referred to it by the City Commission and to give to the City Commission the benefit of its judgment with relation to such matters so referred. Matters so referred may include, but are not restricted to: requests for change of zoning; request for closing, opening or altering a street, or an alley; requests for issuing building permits; and any other matters which bear relation to the growth of the municipality. When the Planning Board has made any recommendation, the same shall be referred to the City Commission or other appropriate City boards. B. An application for Site Plan and Design Review, and Special Land Use Permit Review, shall be filed with the Birmingham Community Development Department. This application, together with supporting data, shall be reviewed by the Planning Board. 1. The application shall be made on a form supplied by the Community Development Department. 2. The "Supporting data" referred to above shall consist of a the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Two hard copies and a digital copy of all project plans including: A detailed site plan including the subject site in its entirety, including all property lines, buildings, structures, curb cuts, sidewalks, drives, ramps and all parking on site and on the street(s) adjacent to the site, and must show the same details for all adjacent properties within 200 of the subject site s property lines; A plan, sketch or drawing depicting accurately and in detail, the proposed construction, alteration or repair; Interior floor plans; A landscape plan; A photometric plan; Colored elevation drawings for each façade; Specification sheets on all proposed materials, light fixtures and mechanical equipment; Samples of all proposed materials; Signed clearance letter from DTE approving location of all lines, transformers etc.; Photographs a photograph of any existing structure on the site and any abutting structures; Current aerial photos of the site and surrounding properties; and Any or other data requested by the Planning Board or Community Development Department. C. The application and supporting data shall be submitted to the Birmingham Community Development Department not later than the 28 th day preceding the meeting of the Planning Board at which the application is requested to be heard. Applications that require the submission of a Community Impact Study and/or Traffic Study shall submit the application and supporting data to the Community Development Department not later than the 45 th day preceding the meeting of the H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2018\May 9, 2018\Extra Docs\6A - PB RULES OF PROCEDURE doc

49 Planning Board Rules of Procedure Page 4 of 5 Planning Board at which the application is requested to be heard. D. The Planning Board shall seek public comment regarding each agenda item that requires a motion by the Planning Board. E. The Planning Board shall notify the Building Division of its approval or rejection of the application submitted to it for review. If the application is approved, the Secretary shall sign and date the permit application. The Building Division then has the responsibility of comparing those plans with the plans endorsed, approved, dated and signed by all approving members. F. Failure of the applicant, or a duly authorized representative, to appear for the hearing will result in the application being adjourned to the next regular meeting at which site plans are scheduled for review. If after notice, the applicant fails to appear for the second time, it will result in an automatic withdrawal of the application. The applicant will be free to reapply without prejudice. G. Site Plan Approval shall be valid for a period of one (1) year from the date it is granted. Upon request, the Planning Board may (but need not) grant an extension of not in excess of one (1) year to the applicant prior to the expiration date without the necessity for making an additional presentation. The Building Official shall not issue a permit for such work unless a valid site plan is in effect. Article IV - Notification of Meetings Public notice of all special meetings of the Planning Board stating date, time and place of such meetings shall be posted at least eighteen (18) hours prior to the meeting. Article V Citizen Participation During any planning board meeting, any person may question or comment upon any specific agenda item at the time the planning board considers that item. The public shall also be invited to make comments on any item not on the meeting agenda under the agenda item, "meeting open to the public for items not on the printed agenda." No person shall address the Planning Board without first having been recognized by the presiding officer. Once recognized, the member of the public shall go to one of the available microphones, and state his or her name and community of residence before speaking. The Chairperson may request speakers Speakers may be requested to limit their comments so as to provide opportunities for comments from all interested persons. In particular, no member of the public shall normally be permitted to speak a second time on the same issue until all others wishing to make a presentation on the subject have had an opportunity to do so. If any person becomes loud or unruly, the presiding officer may rule that person out of order and may forfeit that person's opportunity to speak further. A person may also be expelled from the meeting for disruptive conduct breach of the peace. H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2018\May 9, 2018\Extra Docs\6A - PB RULES OF PROCEDURE doc

50 Planning Board Rules of Procedure Page 5 of 5 Article VI Code of Ethics The Planning Board members will: 1. Recognize the primary role of community planners is at all times to serve the past, present and future public interest. 2. Continuously strive to achieve high standards of integrity and professionalism so that the public respect for the community planning process is maintained. 3. Comply with the City s Ethics Ordinance. Abstain from all discussion and decisions in which an appearance of an impropriety or conflict of interest may be perceived. Refuse any personal gift, tangible or intangible that may be perceived as influencing decisions or actions. 4. Continually strive to keep the public informed on community planning issues, encourage communication between citizens and elected and appointed officials, and emphasize at all times friendly, courteous and professional service to the public. 5. Be aware of, and give special attention to, the long and short range impacts and interrelatedness of planning decisions. 6. Endeavor to protect and enhance the natural environment and quality of life through careful and thoughtful decision making, advice and recommendations. 7. Make it a duty to share, advance and contribute to the body of planning knowledge through education, information, and advocacy. 8. Make decisions for the good of the community as a whole and aavoid any act or decision that would tend to promote individual or special interests at the expense and/or integrity dignity of community planning. 9. Strive to utilize professional staff and other resources to achieve the most desirable results with regard to the community planning process. 10. Support and defend the laws and the Constitution of the United States of America and State of Michigan. Article VII -- Amendments These Rules of Procedure may be amended at any regular meeting of the Planning Board upon the affirmative vote of five (5) members. 1/08/97, 6/10/98, 1/24/2001, Adopted: June 13, /12/01, 01/09/02, 03/10/04, 03/09/05, 06/13/18 H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2018\May 9, 2018\Extra Docs\6A - PB RULES OF PROCEDURE doc

51 Preliminary Site Plan Review Application Planning Division Form will not be processed until it is completely filled out. 1. Applicant Name: Address: Phone Number: Fax Number: address: 3. Applicants Attorney/Contact Person Name: Address: Phone Number: Fax Number: address: 5. Required Attachments Two (2) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of all project plans including: A detailed site plan including the subject site in its entirety, including all property lines, buildings, structures, curb cuts, sidewalks, drives, ramps and all parking on site and on the street(s) adjacent to the site, and must show the same details for all adjacent properties within 200 ft. of the subject sites property lines. A plan, sketch or drawing depicting accurately and in detail, the proposed construction, alteration or repair. Interior floor plans. 6. Project Information Address/Location of the property: Name of development: Sidwell #: Current Use: Proposed Use: Area of Site in Acres: Current zoning: Is the property located in the floodplain? 2. Property Owner Name: Address: Phone Number: Fax Number: address: 4. Project Designer/Developer Name: Address: Phone Number: Fax Number: address: A landscape plan. A photometric plan. Colored elevation drawings for each façade. Specification sheets on all proposed materials, light fixtures and mechanical equipment. Samples of all proposed materials. Signed clearance letter from DTE approving location of all lines, transformers, etc. Photographs of any existing structure on the site and any abutting structures. Current aerial photos of the site and surrounding properties. Any other data requested by the Planning Board or Community Development Department. Name of Historic District Site is Located in: Date of Historic District Commission Approval: Date of Design Review Board Approval: Will proposed project require the division of platted lots? Will proposed project require the combination of platted lots?

52 7. Details of the Proposed Development (attach separate sheet if necessary) 8. Buildings and Structures Number of Buildings on Site: Height of Buildings & # of Stories: Use of Buildings: Height of Rooftop Mechanical Equipment: 9. Floor Use and Area (in Square Feet) Proposed Commercial Structures: Total basement floor area: Number of square feet per upper floor: Total floor area: Floor area ratio (total floor area total land area): Open space: Percent of open space: Proposed Residential Structures: Total number of units: Number of one bedroom units: Number of two bedroom units: Number of three bedroom units: Open space: Percent of open space: Proposed Additions: Total basement floor area, if any, of addition: Number of floors to be added: Square footage added per floor: Total building floor area (including addition): Floor area ratio (total floor area total land area): Open Space: Percent of open space: 10. Required and Proposed Setbacks Required front setback: Required rear setback: Required total side setback: Side setback: 11. Required and Proposed Parking Required number of parking spaces: Typical angle of parking spaces: Typical width of maneuvering lanes: Location of parking on site: Location of parking off site: Number of light standards in parking area: Screenwall material: Office Space: Retail Space: Industrial Space: Assembly Space: Seating Capacity: Maximum Occupancy Load: Rental units or condominiums? Size of one bedroom units: Size of two bedroom units: Size of three bedroom units: Seating Capacity: Maximum Occupancy Load: Use of addition: Height of addition: Office space in addition: Retail space in addition: Industrial space in addition: Assembly space in addition: Maximum building occupancy load (including addition): Proposed front setback: Proposed rear setback Proposed total side setback: Second side setback: Proposed number of parking spaces: Typical size of parking spaces: Number of spaces <180 sq. ft.: Number of handicap spaces: Shared parking agreement? Height of light standards in parking area: Height of screenwall:

53 12. Landscaping Location of landscape areas: 13. Streetscape Sidewalk width: Number of benches: Number of planters: Number of existing street trees: Number of proposed street trees: Streetscape plan submitted? 14. Loading Required number of loading spaces: Typical angle of loading spaces: Screenwall material: Location of loading spaces on site: 15. Exterior Waste Receptacles Required number of waste receptacles: Location of waste receptacles: Screenwall material: Proposed landscape material: Description of benches or planters: Species of existing trees: Species of proposed trees: Proposed number of loading spaces: Typical size of loading spaces: Height of screenwall: Typical time loading spaces are used: Proposed number of waste receptacles: Size of waste receptacles: Height of screenwall: 16. Mechanical Equipment Utilities and Transformers: Number of ground mounted transformers: Size of transformers (L W H): Number of utility easements: Screenwall material: Ground Mounted Mechanical Equipment: Number of ground mounted units: Size of ground mounted units (L W H): Screenwall material: Rooftop Mechanical Equipment: Number of rooftop units: Type of rooftop units: Screenwall material: Location of screenwall: 17. Accessory Buildings Number of accessory buildings: Location of accessory buildings: Location of all utilities & easements: Height of screenwall: Location of all ground mounted units: Height of screenwall: Location of all rooftop units: Size of rooftop units (L W H): Percentage of rooftop covered by mechanical units: Height of screenwall: Distance from rooftop units to all screenwalls: Size of accessory buildings: Height of accessory buildings:

54 18. Building Lighting Number of light standards on building: Size of light fixtures (L W H): Maximum wattage per fixture: Light level at each property line: 19. Site Lighting Number of light fixtures: Size of light fixtures (L W H): Maximum wattage per fixture: Light level at each property line: Type of light standards on building: Height from grade: Proposed wattage per fixture: Type of light fixtures: Height from grade: Proposed wattage per fixture: Holiday tree lighting receptacles: 20. Adjacent Properties Number of properties within 200 ft.: Property #1 Number of buildings on site: Zoning district: Use type: Square footage of principal building: Square footage of accessory buildings: Number of parking spaces: Property #2 Number of buildings on site: Zoning district: Use type: Square footage of principal building: Square footage of accessory buildings: Number of parking spaces: Property #3 Number of buildings on site: Zoning district: Use type: Square footage of principal building: Square footage of accessory buildings: Number of parking spaces: Property #4 Number of buildings on site: Zoning district: Use type: Square footage of principal building: Square footage of accessory buildings: Number of parking spaces: Property #5 Number of buildings on site: Zoning district: Use type: Square footage of principal building: Square footage of accessory buildings: Number of parking spaces: Property Description: North, south, east or west of property? Property Description: North, south, east or west of property? Property Description: North, south, east or west of property? Property Description: North, south, east or west of property? Property Description: North, south, east or west of property?

55 Property #6 Number of buildings on site: Zoning district: Use type: Square footage of principal building: Square footage of accessory buildings: Number of parking spaces: Property Description: North, south, east or west of property? The undersigned states the above information is true and correct, and understands that it is the responsibility of the applicant to advise the Planning Division and / or Building Division of any additional changes made to an approved site plan. The undersigned further states that they have reviewed the procedures and guidelines for site plan review in Birmingham, and have complied with same. The undersigned will be in attendance at the Planning Board meeting when this application will be discussed. Signature of Owner: Date: Print Name: Signature of Applicant: Date: Print Name: Signature of Architect: Date: Print Name: Office Use Only Application #: Date Received: Fee: Date of Approval: Date of Denial: Accepted by:

56 PRELIMINARY SIT PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION CHECKLIST - PLANNING DIVISION Applicant: Case #: Date: Address: Project: All site plans and elevation drawings prepared for approval shall be prepared in accordance with the following specifications and other applicable requirements of the City of Birmingham. If more than one page is used, each page shall be numbered sequentially. All plans must be legible and of sufficient quality to provide for quality reproduction or recording. Plans must be no larger than 24 x 36, and must be folded and stapled together. The address of the site must be clearly noted on all plans and supporting documentation. Preliminary Site Plan A full site plan detailing the proposed changes for which approval is requested shall be drawn at a scale no smaller than 1 = 100 (unless the drawing will not fit on one 24 X 36 sheet) and shall include: 1. Name and address of applicant and proof of ownership; 2. Name of Development (if applicable); 3. Address of site and legal description of the real estate; 4. Name and address of the land surveyor; 5. Legend and notes, including a graphic scale, north point, and date; 6. A separate location map; 7. A map showing the boundary lines of adjacent land and the existing zoning of the area proposed to be developed as well as the adjacent land; 8. Current aerial photographs of the site and surrounding properties; 9. A plan, sketch or drawing depicting accurately and in detail, the proposed construction, alteration or repair; 10. A detailed site plan including the subject site in its entirety, including all property lines, buildings, structures, curb cuts, sidewalks, drives, ramps and all parking on site and on the street(s) adjacent to the site, and must show the same details for all adjacent properties within 200 ft. of the subject sites property lines; 11. Interior floor plans; 12. A chart indicating the dates of any previous approvals by the Planning Board, Board of Zoning Appeals, Design Review Board, or the Historic District Commission ( HDC ); 13. Existing and proposed layout of streets, open space and other basic elements of the plan; 14. Existing and proposed utilities and easements and their purpose; 15. Location of natural streams, regulated drains, 100-year flood plains, floodway, water courses, marshes, wooded areas, isolated preserve-able trees, wetlands, historic features, existing structures, dry wells, utility lines, fire hydrants and any other significant feature(s) that may influence the design of the development; 16. General description, location, and types of structures on site and photos of the same; 17. Details of existing or proposed lighting, signage and other pertinent development features;

57 18. Colored elevation drawings of all facades showing proposed design; 19. Screening to be utilized in concealing any exposed mechanical or electrical equipment and all trash receptacle areas; 20. Location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 21. A photometric plan depicting proposed illuminance levels at all property lines; 22. A landscape plan showing all existing and proposed planting and screening materials, including the number, size, and type of plantings proposed and the method of irrigation; and 23. A signed clearance letter from DTE approving location of all lines, transformers etc.; 24. Any other information requested in writing by the Planning Division, the Planning Board, or the Building Official deemed important to the development. Elevation Drawings Complete elevation drawings detailing the proposed changes for which approval is requested shall be drawn at a scale no smaller than 1 = 100 (unless the drawing will not fit on one 24 X 36 sheet) and shall include: 25. Color elevation drawings showing the proposed design for each façade of the building; 26. List of all materials to be used for the building, marked on the elevation drawings; 27. Elevation drawings of all screenwalls to be utilized in concealing any exposed mechanical or electrical equipment, trash receptacle areas and parking areas; 28. Details of existing or proposed lighting, signage and other pertinent development features; 29. Itemized list and specification sheets of all materials, light fixtures and mechanical equipment to be used, including exact size specifications, color, style, and the name of the manufacturer; 30. Location of all exterior lighting fixtures, exact size specifications, color, style and the name of the manufacturer of all fixtures, and a photometric analysis of all exterior lighting fixtures showing light levels to all property lines; and 31. Any other information requested in writing by the Planning Division, the Planning Board, or the Building Official deemed important to the development.

58 Notice Signs - Rental Application Community Development 1. Applicant Property Owner Name: Name: Address: Address: Phone Number: Phone Number: Fax Number: Fax Number: 2. Project Information Address/Location of Property: Name of Development: Area in Acres: 3. Date of Board Review Board of Building Trades Appeals: City Commission: Historic District Commission: Planning Board: Name of Historic District site is in, if any: Current Use: Current Zoning: Board of Zoning Appeals: Design Review Board: Housing Board of Appeals: The undersigned states the above information is true and correct, and understands that it is the responsibility of the applicant to post the Notice Sign(s) at least 15 days prior to the date on which the project will be reviewed by the appropriate board or commission, and to ensure that the Notice Sign(s) remains posted during the entire 15 day mandatory posting period. The undersigned further agrees to pay a rental fee and security deposit for the Notice Sign(s), and to remove all such signs on the day immediately following the date of the hearing at which the project was reviewed. The security deposit will be refunded when the Notice Sign(s) are returned undamaged to the Community Development Department. Failure to return the Notice Sign(s) and/or damage to the Notice Sign(s) will result in forfeiture of the security deposit. Signature of Applicant: Office Use Only Application #: Date Received: Date of Approval: Date of Denial: Date: Fee: Reviewed by:

59 Fee Schedule Administrative Approval $ Board of Zoning Appeals* Single Family Residential $310 All Others $510 Community Impact Study Review* $2,050 Design Review* $350 Lot Division* $200 / parcel affected Historic District Review* Single Family Residential District No charge All other zone districts Public Notice Sign Site Plan Review* R4 through R8 zone district Nonresidential districts $350 $100 / refundable deposit $50 fee $850 plus $50 per dwelling unit $1050 plus $50 per acre or portion of acre Special Land Use Permit* Plus Site Plan Review Plus Design Review Plus Publish of Legal Notice Plus sign rental and deposit Special Land Use Permit Annual Renewal Fee Temporary Use Permit $100 Zoning Compliance Letter $50 $800 $1050 $350 $450 $150 Total fee: $2800 $ The fees for design review, site plan review, historic district review and special land use permits shall be double the listed amounts in the even the work is commenced prior to the filing of an application for review by the City of Birmingham. Ordinance No (Appendix A, Section 7.38 of the Birmingham City Code)

60 MEMORANDUM Planning Division DATE: June 13 th, 2018 TO: FROM: APPROVED: SUBJECT: Planning Board Brooks Cowan, City Planner Jana L. Ecker, Planning Director Bistro Regulations As the bistro concept has evolved over the past 10 years, new applicants have sought creative ways to make the establishments distinctive from other restaurants and bistros in the City, and to increase the number of seats through the use of all season outdoor dining. The following issues have been raised: Use of Eisenglass Doing so extends the time period outdoor dining areas are in operation which increases the number of seats for the restaurant as a whole for a majority of the year; District Requirements The Downtown District, Triangle District, and Rail District have different opportunities which could merit different requirements for bistros locating within them; On-street Dining/Rooftop Dining the use of on-street parking spaces and rooftops in addition to the sidewalk area allows the addition of larger outdoor dining areas; Parking Needs the expansion of outdoor dining increases the number of people dining at the restaurant, which increases parking demand; Building Code Requirements the enclosure of outdoor dining areas triggers Building Code regulations such as Energy Code compliance, fire suppression requirements, fire separation distances and exterior wall fire resistive ratings; and Incentivizing Seating Capacity Tiers Allowing an increased amount of indoor seating and/or outdoor dining seating for bistros based upon conditional standards such as shared parking, landscaping, greenspace, etc. At the joint City Commission/Planning Board meeting of June 19 th, 2017 the issue of bistro regulations was discussed at length. There was a consensus that a review of the bistro requirements and how they relate to the various areas in which they are permitted was warranted. Additionally, Commission members saw good reason to potentially regulate bistros differently depending on the district in which they are located. Accordingly, the Planning Board began studying the existing bistro regulations and discussing potential new regulations. Over several months, the Planning Board studied existing bistros and discussed the goals of the bistro program in the future.

61 On August 9 th, 2017, the Planning Board considered ordinance language stating Outdoor seating on public property shall not exceed 40 seats. The discussion on this topic was that some may not agree with an exorbitant amount of outdoor seating, but each bistro should be reviewed on an individual basis. On September 13 th, 2017, the Planning Board revisited the issue of limiting the number of outdoor seating, and decided that this should be reviewed on a case-by case basis. There was general consensus that the Board will see the outdoor dining plans in each application, and if they think the number of seats exceeds what is reasonable, they will ask the applicant to change the number and/or formation of outdoor seating. Rooftop dining was also discussed on September 13 th, 2017, where the Board also decided that this should be reviewed on an individual basis. It was noted that outdoor dining on the street level was preferable, and if the applicant met this requirement, then the Board would generally be in support of rooftop dining. On April 11, 2018, the Planning Board conducted a public hearing and unanimously passed a motion recommending approval of the attached ordinance amendments for bistro regulations to the City Commission. Please find attached the draft ordinance language and meeting minutes for your consideration. Language related to limiting the number of outdoor seats or rooftop dining was not included because the Board agreed that these should be reviewed on an individual basis. On April 23, 2018 the City Commission set a public hearing for May 14, 2018 to consider approval of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance related to bistros. On May 14 th, after reviewing the proposed changes, the general consensus from the City Commission was that they like the 42 rail standards as well as the rule banning year round outdoor dining enclosures. However, the City Commission did not vote on the proposal because they wanted the Planning Board to reconsider setting a limit on the number of outdoor seating allowed at bistros, and to address rooftop dining. Therefore, as to the directives of the City Commission, issues for discussion related to bistro requirements include: 1.) The number of outdoor dining seats bistros are allowed 2.) Permissible rooftop dining

62 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO. THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM: TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, SECTION 3.04(C)(10), SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR A BISTRO IN THE DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT Specific Standards C. Building Use 10. Bistros: Bistros are permitted with a valid Special Land Use Permit with the following conditions: A. No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 10 seats; B. Alcohol is served only to seated patrons, except those standing in a defined bar area; C. No dance area is provided; D. Only low key entertainment is permitted; E. Bistros must have tables located in the storefront space lining any street, or pedestrian passage; F. A minimum of 70% glazing must be provided along building facades facing a street or pedestrian passage between 1 foot and 8 feet in height; G. All bistro owners must execute a contract with the City outlining the details of the operation of the bistro; and H. Outdoor dining must be provided, weather permitting, along an adjacent street or passage during the months of May through October each year. Outdoor dining is not permitted past 12:00 a.m. If there is not sufficient space to permit such dining on the sidewalk adjacent to the bistro, an elevated, ADA compliant, enclosed defined platform must be erected on the street adjacent to the bistro to create an outdoor dining area if the Engineering Department determines there is sufficient space available for this purpose given parking and traffic conditions. I. Enclosures facilitating year round dining outdoors are not permitted. J. Railings, planters or similar barriers defining outdoor dining platforms may not exceed 42 in height. ORDAINED this day of, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

63 Andrew Harris, Mayor Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

64 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO. THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM: TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.06(A), O1 OFFICE DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR A BISTRO IN THE O1 DISTRICT O1 District A. Bistros: Bistros are permitted with a valid Special Land Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 10 seats in the Downtown Overlay District, or 15 seats in the Triangle District and Rail District; 2. Alcohol is served only to seated patrons, except those standing in a defined bar area; 3. No dance area is provided; 4. Only low key entertainment is permitted; 5. Bistros must have tables located in the storefront space lining any street, or pedestrian passage; 6. A minimum of 70% glazing must be provided along building facades facing a street or pedestrian passage between 1 foot and 8 feet in height; 7. All bistro owners must execute a contract with the City outlining the details of the operation of the bistro; and 8. Outdoor dining must be provided, weather permitting, along an adjacent street or passage during the months of May through October each year. Outdoor dining is not permitted past 12:00 a.m. If there is not sufficient space to permit such dining on the sidewalk adjacent to the bistro, an elevated, ADA compliant, enclosed defined platform must be erected on the street adjacent to the bistro to create an outdoor dining area if the Engineering Department determines there is sufficient space available for this purpose given parking and traffic conditions. 9. Enclosures facilitating year round dining outdoors are not permitted. 10. Railings, planters or similar barriers defining outdoor dining platforms may not exceed 42 in height. ORDAINED this day of, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication. Andrew Harris, Mayor Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

65 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO. THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM: TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.07(A), O2 OFFICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR A BISTRO IN THE O2 DISTRICT O2 District A. Bistros: Bistros are permitted with a valid Special Land Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 10 seats in the Downtown Overlay District, or 15 seats in the Triangle District and Rail District; 2. Alcohol is served only to seated patrons, except those standing in a defined bar area; 3. No dance area is provided; 4. Only low key entertainment is permitted; 5. Bistros must have tables located in the storefront space lining any street, or pedestrian passage; 6. A minimum of 70% glazing must be provided along building facades facing a street or pedestrian passage between 1 foot and 8 feet in height; 7. All bistro owners must execute a contract with the City outlining the details of the operation of the bistro; and 8. Outdoor dining must be provided, weather permitting, along an adjacent street or passage during the months of May through October each year. Outdoor dining is not permitted past 12:00 a.m. If there is not sufficient space to permit such dining on the sidewalk adjacent to the bistro, an elevated, ADA compliant, enclosed defined platform must be erected on the street adjacent to the bistro to create an outdoor dining area if the Engineering Department determines there is sufficient space available for this purpose given parking and traffic conditions. 9. Enclosures facilitating year round dining outdoors are not permitted. 10. Railings, planters or similar barriers defining outdoor dining platforms may not exceed 42 in height. ORDAINED this day of, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication. Andrew Harris, Mayor Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

66 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO. THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM: TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.08(A), P PARKING DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR A BISTRO IN THE P DISTRICT P District A. Bistros: Bistros are permitted with a valid Special Land Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 10 seats in the Downtown Overlay District, or 15 seats in the Triangle District and Rail District; 2. Alcohol is served only to seated patrons, except those standing in a defined bar area; 3. No dance area is provided; 4. Only low key entertainment is permitted; 5. Bistros must have tables located in the storefront space lining any street, or pedestrian passage; 6. A minimum of 70% glazing must be provided along building facades facing a street or pedestrian passage between 1 foot and 8 feet in height; 7. All bistro owners must execute a contract with the City outlining the details of the operation of the bistro; and 8. Outdoor dining must be provided, weather permitting, along an adjacent street or passage during the months of May through October each year. Outdoor dining is not permitted past 12:00 a.m. If there is not sufficient space to permit such dining on the sidewalk adjacent to the bistro, an elevated, ADA compliant, enclosed defined platform must be erected on the street adjacent to the bistro to create an outdoor dining area if the Engineering Department determines there is sufficient space available for this purpose given parking and traffic conditions. 9. Enclosures facilitating year round dining outdoors are not permitted. 10. Railings, planters or similar barriers defining outdoor dining platforms may not exceed 42 in height. ORDAINED this day of, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication. Andrew Harris, Mayor Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

67 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO. THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM: TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.10(B), B2 GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, B2B GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, B2C GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR A BISTRO IN THE B2B DISTRICT B2 District, B2B District, B2C District B. Bistros: Bistros are permitted with a valid Special Land Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 10 seats in the Downtown Overlay District, or 15 seats in the Triangle District and Rail District; 2. Alcohol is served only to seated patrons, except those standing in a defined bar area; 3. No dance area is provided; 4. Only low key entertainment is permitted; 5. Bistros must have tables located in the storefront space lining any street, or pedestrian passage; 6. A minimum of 70% glazing must be provided along building facades facing a street or pedestrian passage between 1 foot and 8 feet in height; 7. All bistro owners must execute a contract with the City outlining the details of the operation of the bistro; and 8. Outdoor dining must be provided, weather permitting, along an adjacent street or passage during the months of May through October each year. Outdoor dining is not permitted past 12:00 a.m. If there is not sufficient space to permit such dining on the sidewalk adjacent to the bistro, an elevated, ADA compliant, enclosed defined platform must be erected on the street adjacent to the bistro to create an outdoor dining area if the Engineering Department determines there is sufficient space available for this purpose given parking and traffic conditions. 9. Enclosures facilitating year round dining outdoors are not permitted. 10. Railings, planters or similar barriers defining outdoor dining platforms may not exceed 42 in height. ORDAINED this day of, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication. Andrew Harris, Mayor Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

68 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO. THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM: TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.11(A), B3 OFFICE-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR A BISTRO IN THE B3 DISTRICT B3 District A. Bistros: Bistros are permitted with a valid Special Land Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 10 seats in the Downtown Overlay District, or 15 seats in the Triangle District and Rail District; 2. Alcohol is served only to seated patrons, except those standing in a defined bar area; 3. No dance area is provided; 4. Only low key entertainment is permitted; 5. Bistros must have tables located in the storefront space lining any street, or pedestrian passage; 6. A minimum of 70% glazing must be provided along building facades facing a street or pedestrian passage between 1 foot and 8 feet in height; 7. All bistro owners must execute a contract with the City outlining the details of the operation of the bistro; and 8. Outdoor dining must be provided, weather permitting, along an adjacent street or passage during the months of May through October each year. Outdoor dining is not permitted past 12:00 a.m. If there is not sufficient space to permit such dining on the sidewalk adjacent to the bistro, an elevated, ADA compliant, enclosed defined platform must be erected on the street adjacent to the bistro to create an outdoor dining area if the Engineering Department determines there is sufficient space available for this purpose given parking and traffic conditions. 9. Enclosures facilitating year round dining outdoors are not permitted. 10. Railings, planters or similar barriers defining outdoor dining platforms may not exceed 42 in height. ORDAINED this day of, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication. Andrew Harris, Mayor Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

69 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO. THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM: TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.12(B), B4 BUSINESS-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR A BISTRO IN THE B4 DISTRICT B4 District B. Bistros: Bistros are permitted with a valid Special Land Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 10 seats in the Downtown Overlay District, or 15 seats in the Triangle District and Rail District; 2. Alcohol is served only to seated patrons, except those standing in a defined bar area; 3. No dance area is provided; 4. Only low key entertainment is permitted; 5. Bistros must have tables located in the storefront space lining any street, or pedestrian passage; 6. A minimum of 70% glazing must be provided along building facades facing a street or pedestrian passage between 1 foot and 8 feet in height; 7. All bistro owners must execute a contract with the City outlining the details of the operation of the bistro; and 8. Outdoor dining must be provided, weather permitting, along an adjacent street or passage during the months of May through October each year. Outdoor dining is not permitted past 12:00 a.m. If there is not sufficient space to permit such dining on the sidewalk adjacent to the bistro, an elevated, ADA compliant, enclosed defined platform must be erected on the street adjacent to the bistro to create an outdoor dining area if the Engineering Department determines there is sufficient space available for this purpose given parking and traffic conditions. 9. Enclosures facilitating year round dining outdoors are not permitted. 10. Railings, planters or similar barriers defining outdoor dining platforms may not exceed 42 in height. ORDAINED this day of, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication. Andrew Harris, Mayor Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

70 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO. THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM: TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.13, MX(C) (M) MIXED USE DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO ADD REGULATIONS FOR A BISTRO IN THE MX DISTRICT AND RENUMBER REGULATIONS FOLLOWING (C) MX District A. Alcoholic Beverage Sales: Alcoholic beverage sales for consumption off the premises in conjunction with grocery stores, drugstores, party stores and delicatessens is permitted. B. Automobile Rental Establishment: An automobile rental establishment is permitted provided all vehicles are stored in a public or private parking garage C. Bistros: Bistros are permitted with a valid Special Land Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 10 seats in the Downtown Overlay District, or 15 seats in the Triangle District and Rail District; 2. Alcohol is served only to seated patrons, except those standing in a defined bar area; 3. No dance area is provided; 4. Only low key entertainment is permitted; 5. Bistros must have tables located in the storefront space lining any street, or pedestrian passage; 6. A minimum of 70% glazing must be provided along building facades facing a street or pedestrian passage between 1 foot and 8 feet in height; 7. All bistro owners must execute a contract with the City outlining the details of the operation of the bistro; and 8. Outdoor dining must be provided, weather permitting, along an adjacent street or passage during the months of May through October each year. Outdoor dining is not permitted past 12:00 a.m. If there is not sufficient space to permit such dining on the sidewalk adjacent to the bistro, an elevated, ADA compliant, defined platform must be erected on the street adjacent to the bistro to create an outdoor dining area if the Engineering Department determines there is sufficient space available for this purpose given parking and traffic conditions. 9. Enclosures facilitating year round dining outdoors are not permitted. 10. Railings, planters or similar barriers defining outdoor dining platforms may not exceed 42 in height.

71 C. D.Dwelling Accessory: Residential units located in accessory structures are permitted provided that the residential units meet the minimum unit requirements identified in each two-page layout in Article 2. Where there is a conflich between this provision and the requirements of Section 4.02, this section shall take precedent. D. E. E. F. F. G. G. H. H. I. I. J. J. K. K. L. L. M. M. N. ORDAINED this day of, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication. Andrew Harris, Mayor Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

72 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO. THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM: TO AMEND ARTICLE 9, SECTION 9.02, DEFINITIONS, TO AMEND THE EXISTING DEFINITION OF BISTRO Definitions Bistro: When located in the Downtown Overlay District, a restaurant with a full service kitchen with interior seating for no more than 65 people and additional seating for outdoor dining. When located in the Triangle District or Rail District, a restaurant with a full service kitchen with interior seating for no more than 85 people and additional seating for outdoor dining. ORDAINED this day of, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication. Andrew Harris, Mayor Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

73 MEMORANDUM Planning Division DATE: April 5, 2018 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Board Matthew Baka, Senior Planner Bistro Ordinance amendment Public Hearing Background: In 2007 the City of Birmingham amended the Zoning Ordinance to create the bistro concept that allows small eclectic restaurants to obtain a liquor license if they have no more than 65 seats, including 10 at the bar, and low key entertainment only. The bistro regulations adopted also included requirements for storefront glazing, seating along the storefront windows, and a requirement for outdoor dining. In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, each bistro applicant is required to go through an initial screening process at the City Commission, demonstrate that all bistro requirements have been met, and then obtain a Special Land Use Permit from the City Commission. Issue: As the bistro concept has evolved over the past 10 years, new applicants have sought creative ways to make the establishments distinctive from other restaurants and bistros in the City, and to increase the number of seats through the use of all season outdoor dining. The following issues have been raised: Use of Eisenglass Doing so extends the time period outdoor dining areas are in operation which increases the number of seats for the restaurant as a whole for a majority of the year; District Requirements The Downtown District, Triangle District, and Rail District have different opportunities which could merit different requirements for bistros locating within them; On-street Dining/Rooftop Dining the use of on-street parking spaces and rooftops in addition to the sidewalk area allows the addition of larger outdoor dining areas; Parking Needs the expansion of outdoor dining increases the number of people dining at the restaurant, which increases parking demand; Building Code Requirements the enclosure of outdoor dining areas triggers Building Code regulations such as Energy Code compliance, fire suppression requirements, fire separation distances and exterior wall fire resistive ratings. Incentivizing Seating Capacity Tiers Allowing an increased amount of indoor seating and/or outdoor dining seating for bistros based upon conditional standards such as shared parking, landscaping, greenspace, etc. At the joint City Commission/Planning Board meeting of June 19 th, 2017 the issue of bistro regulations was discussed at length. There was a consensus that a review of the Bistro

74 requirements and how they relate to the various areas in which they are permitted is warranted. Additionally, Commission members saw good reason to potentially regulate bistros differently depending on the district in which they are located. On July 12 th, 2017, the Planning Board held further discussion about the topics brought up in the joint City Commission/Planning Board meeting related to bistro requirements. Potential revisions and additions to the bistro standards were discussed, as well as sample draft ordinance language to be proposed for the next Planning Board meeting. On August 9, 2017 the Planning Board held a study session to address the issues of parking, outdoor dining, and eisenglass enclosures. Based on previous discussion at the joint meeting and the Planning Board, the Planning Division presented sample draft ordinance language to initiate discussion. The draft language provided limits on the number of outdoor dining seats, restricted the use of eisenglass or vinyl enclosures and required additional parking for the outdoor dining areas. The discussion revealed that the Planning Board did not support regulating the number of outdoor dining seats, or requiring additional parking for such outdoor dining areas. There was unanimous support for restricting the use of enclosures on outdoor dining to ensure that outdoor dining is truly seasonal. On Septemeber 13 th, 2017 the Planning Board once again held a study session in regards to bistro regulations and reviewed sample draft ordinances. The draft language was revised to provide options that would eliminate the ability to utilize enclosures year round. The language was also revised so as not to limit the number of outdoor seats and not to require additional parking for those seating areas, as previously discussed. Additional points raised by the Planning Board were whether or not the 65 seat limit should be revisited, whether rooftop dining should be encouraged, and what an acceptable railing height for platform decks is. It was suggested that The Triangle District and Rail District could establish different standards for maximum seating due to different conditions in those areas. New draft language has been included that expands interior seating for bistros in the Triangle District and Rail District to 85 seats with 15 at the bar, while interior seating for the Downtown District remains at 65. Current rooftop dining standards were deemed acceptable, but the Board wished to see railings on platform decks limited to 42. On January 10, 2018 the Planning Board reviewed the latest draft ordinance language for the proposed bistro regulation changes. The Board requested that the language regarding permanent outdoor dining be consolidated and streamline and also that the language reference on street platforms be adjusted so that the reference to enclosing it be eliminated. No other changes were proposed at that time. The Board agreed that they would like to see the final draft language prior to setting a public hearing. The draft ordinance language and the minutes from the previous meetings are attached for your review. On March 14, 2018 the Planning Board reviewed the updated draft ordinance amendments after discussion and one minor alteration to the language the Board voted to set a public hearing for April 11, Accordingly, the latest draft language is attached along with the relevant meeting minutes.

75 SUGGESTED ACTION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Board recommend APPROVAL of the proposed ordinance amendment to the City Commission.

76 BIRMINGHAM CITY COMMISSION / PLANNING BOARD JOINT WORKSHOP SESSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 2017 DPS FACILITY, 851 SOUTH ETON 8:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Mark Nickita called the meeting to order at 8:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Nickita Mayor Pro Tem Harris Commissioner Bordman Commissioner Boutros Commissioner DeWeese Commissioner Hoff Commissioner Sherman Scott Clein, Planning Board Chairman ABSENT: Stuart Jeffares, Member Bert Koseck, Member Janelle Whipple-Boyce, Member J. Bryan Williams, Member Robin Boyle, Member Gillian Lazar, Member Lisa Prasad, Member Daniel Share, Member ADMINISTRATION: City Manager Valentine, City Attorney Studt, Deputy Clerk Arft, Planning Director, Ecker, Building Official Johnson III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Mayor Nickita explained that this is a workshop session to discuss and evaluate various planning issues, with the intent to create an Action List for the Planning Board. City Manager Valentine added that more discussion will be needed on each item by the City Commission. The priorities will be determined by the Commission at a future meeting. E. BISTRO ALLOWANCES AND RESTRICTIONS

77 Ms. Ecker said there has been concern expressed over the size of Bistros recently. She explained that a Bistro is defined as a restaurant with 65 seats or less, with no more than 10 of them at a bar, with a full service kitchen, low key entertainment, tables that must line the storefront, and outdoor dining. The biggest issue has been how much is too much outdoor dining. The intent when Bistros was started was to encourage outdoor dining, but it was not apparent at the time how far owners would look for creative opportunities to expand the outdoor dining. She suggested clarifications as to maximums, location, enclosures and the building code issues such as energy code, fire suppression might be needed. Parking needs are also a big concern. Mayor Nickita added that the original concept for Bistros was just in the downtown area and that has changed. Once the area expanded to the Triangle area and Rail District, it changed the circumstance because of parking and available outdoor space. Commissioner Bordman suggested considering different rules for different areas. The needs are different. Perhaps part of the study should be whether to have the exact same requirements in each of our districts. Commissioner DeWeese suggested we need an intermediate level that applies in different situations. He considers this a high priority issue. Mr. Koseck suggested that we should study the materials used and also the intent. Commissioner Hoff agreed it is time to review the Bistro ordinance. It has developed differently than what was planned. Mayor Nickita commented that it is time to review the ordinance.

78 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2017 City Commission Room 151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan Bistro Regulations Mr. Baka recalled that In 2007 the City of Birmingham amended the Zoning Ordinance to create the bistro concept that allows small eclectic restaurants to obtain a liquor license if they have no more than 65 seats, including 10 at a bar, and low key entertainment only. Mr. Baka observed that as the bistro concept has evolved over the past 10 years, new applicants have sought creative ways to make their establishments distinctive from other restaurants and bistros in the City, and to increase the number of seats through the use of all season outdoor dining. The following issues have been raised: Use of Eisenglass extends the time period outdoor dining areas are in operation which increases the number of seats for restaurant as a whole for a majority of the year; On-street Dining/Rooftop Dining the use of on-street parking spaces and rooftops in addition to the sidewalk area allows the addition of larger outdoor dining areas; Parking Needs the expansion of outdoor dining increases the number of people dining at the restaurant, which increases parking demand; Building Code Requirements the enclosure of outdoor dining areas triggers Building Code regulations such as Energy Code compliance, fire suppression requirements, fire separation distances and exterior wall fire resistive ratings. At the joint City Commission/Planning Board meeting of June 19, 2017 this issue was discussed at length. There seemed to be consensus that a review of the bistro requirements and how they relate to the various areas in which they are permitted is warranted. Accordingly, the Planning Division is now requesting that the Planning Board begin discussions on how these concerns should be addressed. Mr. Williams indicated he never envisioned 10 years ago that some of the sites would be so disproportionately large based on outdoor dining. Ms. Whipple-Boyce said the bistros should be looked at from the standpoint of their locations in different districts throughout the City. Chairman Clein thought there is a need to study the general parking requirement in the MX District based on the number of outdoor dining seats. Mr. Boyle added that bistros might be incentivized there by allowing more seating outside. Further, also consider that the Triangle District is different. Mr. Williams noted the single biggest thing the board never anticipated was the extent to which Eisenglass would provide for almost four season use. Ms. Ecker added maybe the board doesn't mind having Eisenglass on a rainy day but they don't want to see it extend the season past November 1st through March 31st. There are two issues: the look of it, and whether it changes the character of use from seasonal to permanent. There was consensus to look at including the opportunity for rooftop dining for bistros.

79 Ms. Lazar agreed the larger spaces, particularly in the MX District, might be increased. But, the neighbors may be upset if they feel there will be increased intrusion into the neighborhoods as a result. Maybe some type of parking requirement might have to be imposed. Chairman Clein thought that Residential Permit Parking might be needed in that case.

80 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2017 City Commission Room 151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan STUDY SESSIONS 1. Bistro Regulations Mr. Baka noted that in 2007 the City of Birmingham amended the Zoning Ordinance to create the bistro concept that allows small eclectic restaurants to obtain a Liquor License. Bistros are permitted in certain zone districts with a valid Special Land Use Permit ("SLUP") under several conditions. As the bistro concept has evolved over the past ten years, new applicants have sought creative ways to make their establishments distinctive from the other restaurants and bistros in the City, and to increase the number of seats through the use of all season outdoor dining. At the joint City Commission/Planning Board meeting of June 19, 2017 the issue of clarifying bistro regulations was discussed at length. There seemed to be consensus that a review of the bistro requirements and how they relate to the various areas in which they are permitted is warranted. Additionally, Commission members saw good reason to potentially regulate bistros differently depending on the district in which they are located. The Planning Division would like to begin to consider addressing the issues of parking, outdoor dining and Eisenglass enclosures via ordinance language changes. The following examples of potential ordinance language changes are based on two methods of regulating bistros. The thinking is that current bistros would not be impacted by what is being proposed. The first option would be to amend Chapter 126, Zoning, to universally create development standards for bistros that would apply to all zoning districts that permit bistros. Universal regulation would ensure that the dining experience in one bistro (outside of menu, service, theme etc.) is the same as dining in any other bistro. This could mean putting a limit on outdoor seating of 40 seats for all districts, even if there is room (public property or private property) for more. Eisenglass or vinyl enclosures could be prohibited entirely as to not abuse the outdoor dining season limit set forth by the City (April-November). As for parking, requiring all bistros to include their outdoor dining square footage in parking requirements could make sure that there will be enough parking for all of those extra seats. Creating extra parking requirements, though, could also discourage outdoor seating and counteract a key intent of the Bistro Ordinance. The second approach to clarifying bistro regulations would be to amend Chapter 126, Zoning, to create separate bistro standards depending on the bistro's location in the Downtown, Triangle or Rail Districts. In doing so separately, the City can take into account the different space and parking conditions present in different districts. Adding parking requirements, like including outdoor dining area square footage in the parking calculation, to the conditions of certain bistro

81 location districts could help alleviate parking issues. Outdoor dining maximums are a reasonable consideration Downtown because there is less space for a large outdoor dining area. In the Rail and Triangle Districts where street frontage is typically larger, outdoor dining maximums of 40 or 60 seats could be appropriate. Finally, Eisenglass or vinyl enclosures might be considered in some areas along the Woodward Ave. frontage of the Triangle District to alleviate the noise pollution patrons receive from the major road. Mr. Williams thought the major focus should be that one size doesn't fit all. Mr. Jeffares commented that it would be interesting to find out how much of the lunch crowd consists of office users who are already parked in town. It was consensus that there should not be an enclosure that allows bistros to extend their outdoor dining season. The bistro concept is being pushed beyond its original boundaries. Mr. Boyle thought they should be discussing the issue of 65 indoor seats. The board needs to review that and consider the possibility that number could go up. Then bistros could rely less on large outdoor seating and have a stronger business that doesn't tie them to 65 indoor seats. Ms. Whipple-Boyce thought there could be implications to allowing more indoor seating. They don't want Birmingham to become an all restaurant city. She doesn't think parking is that much of a concern because when the offices clear out the restaurants become busy. Don't forget that there are many local residents who walk from their homes to the Downtown bistros. She does not want to encourage a bistro model behind the building. She likes the outdoor seating in the front of buildings to activate the sidewalk space. Look at each bistro independently and see what makes sense, rather than putting a number to it. Also, consider opportunities for rooftop dining. Maybe the districts need be viewed differently because they are different and because some of the parking situations are different. Mr. Koseck said in his opinion the bistros are working. The intent was to attract small scale, unique establishments with a variety of different food types. Why treat the districts differently? Forty outdoor seats is fine and he doesn't want to get caught up in parking for outdoor dining. He totally thinks the outdoor dining should not be enclosed. Pick half of the number of interior seating for outdoor dining; 40 seats is fine. He would rather see three small bistros in the Rail District than one that has 150 seats. Mr. Williams echoed that and added if seating is outdoor, it shouldn't be enclosed. The total seating ought be the combination of both indoor and outdoor. Parking generally works and the only time it doesn't is the 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. window. Lunch is problematic in the Downtown area. Chairman Clein observed he doesn't think including parking in the count really matters. To him the issue is not so much the size of the bistros; it is that they are allowed to be wrapped in plastic and located in places the board doesn't like. Perhaps some incentives could be put forth for establishments to meet if they want to increase their outdoor dining. Mr. Boyle hoped to find a way to make the industrial land use in the Rail District work for bistros.

82 Mr. Baka summarized that the board is divided on whether or not there should be a limit on the number of outside seats. Board members stated they were definitely not in favor of outdoor dining enclosures, and most of the board is leaning against adding additional parking requirements for outdoor dining seats. Nearly everyone wants to keep the districts separate. Mr. Williams added they need to look at the parking, but not Downtown. No one from the public wanted to comment at 10:10 p.m.

83 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 City Commission Room 151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan Bistro Regulations Mr. Baka noted that in 2007 the City of Birmingham amended the Zoning Ordinance to create the bistro concept that allows small eclectic restaurants to obtain a liquor license. Bistros are defined in Article 09 of the Zoning Ordinance as restaurants with a full service kitchen with interior seating for no more than 65 people and additional seating for outdoor dining. Bistros are permitted in certain zone districts with a valid Special Land Use Permit ("SLUP") along with several conditions. As the bistro concept has evolved over the past 10 years, new applicants have sought creative ways to make their establishments distinctive from other restaurants and bistros in the City, and to increase the number of seats through the use of all season outdoor dining. There have been several issues raised: Use of Eisenglass extends the time period outdoor dining areas are in operation which increases the number of seats for restaurant as a whole for a majority of the year; On-street Dining/Rooftop Dining the use of on-street parking spaces and rooftops in addition to the sidewalk area allows the addition of larger outdoor dining areas; Parking Needs the expansion of outdoor dining increases the number of people dining at the restaurant, which increases parking demand; Building Code Requirements the enclosure of outdoor dining areas triggers Building Code regulations such as Energy Code compliance, fire suppression requirements, fire separation distances and exterior wall fire resistive ratings. At the joint City Commission/Planning Board meeting of June 19, 2017 the issue of clarifying bistro regulations was discussed at length. On July 24th, 2017 the City Commission moved the review of bistros up on the Planning Board's Action List. On August 9, 2017 the Planning Board held a study session to begin to consider addressing the issues of parking, outdoor dining and Eisenglass enclosures. Discussion revealed that the Planning Board did not support regulating the number of outdoor dining seats, or requiring additional parking for such outdoor dining areas. There was unanimous support on the board for restricting the use of enclosures on outdoor dining areas to ensure that outdoor dining is truly seasonal. There was also discussion about setting different standards for the interior number of seats in different areas. Accordingly the draft language has been revised to provide options that would eliminate the ability to utilize enclosures year round. The language is now silent on the issues of limiting the number of outdoor seats and requiring additional parking for those seating areas. At this time four proposed options have been added to the ordinance language: Permanent enclosures shall not be permitted for outdoor dining areas.

84 Weather proof enclosures facilitating year around dining outdoors are not permitted. Outdoor dining is not permitted between November 16 and March 31. The use of any type of enclosure system (including but not limited to fabric, Eisenglass, vinyl panels, drapes, plant materials shall not be permitted for outdoor dining areas. Mr. Koseck indicated that in his mind outdoor dining areas should not be framed with walls whether they are temporary or permanent. These areas were never intended to be quasi interior space. Discussion considered eliminating the date restriction and eliminating walls and plastic enclosures. People can sit outdoors on a nice winter day if they choose; however outdoor furniture must be brought inside each night and platforms have to come down in the winter. Board members thought that railings on decks in the street should be limited to 42 in. in height. To sum up the issues that were previously discussed: The use of Eisenglass and the Building Code requirements of such enclosures have been covered in that outdoor dining areas must truly be outdoors, not within enclosed areas; The board was not interested in adding extra parking requirements for outdoor dining; Setting a maximum number of outdoor dining seats is not a concern as they are all SLUPs and thus subject to individual review; Everyone was okay with rooftop dining, but the priority is that there must be outdoor dining in the front first and foremost. Mr. Jeffares was in favor of increasing the capacity of bistros for the Triangle and Rail Districts and Mr. Williams liked that concept. It was discussed that providing shared parking might be an incentive to increase inside seating from 65. However, Mr. Koseck thought that requiring shared parking complicates things. Mr. Baka agreed to bring draft ordinance language for the next meeting.

85 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2018 City Commission Room 151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan Minutes of the regular meeting of the City of Birmingham Planning Board held on January 10, Chairman Scott Clein convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Present: Absent: Chairman Scott Clein; Board Members Robin Boyle, Stuart Jeffares, Bert Koseck, Janelle Whipple-Boyce, Bryan Williams Alternate Board Members Nasseen Ramin, Daniel Share Board Member Vice-Chairperson Gillian Lazar; Student Representatives Ariana Afrakhteh, Isabella Niskar Administration: Matthew Baka, Sr. Planner Jana Ecker, Planning Director Carole Salutes, Recording Secretary 2. Bistro Regulations Mr. Williams rejoined the board and Ms. Ramin left. Mr. Baka advised that recently there has been discussion between the City Commission and the Planning Board that perhaps there should be a re-examination of the bistro requirements which already began last year with several study sessions. As the bistro concept has evolved over the past 10 years, new applicants have sought creative ways to make the establishments distinctive from other restaurants and bistros in the City, and to increase the number of seats through the use of all season outdoor dining. The following issues have been raised: Use of Eisenglass Doing so extends the time period outdoor dining areas are in operation which increases the number of seats for the restaurant as a whole for a majority of the year; District Requirements The Downtown District, Triangle District, and Rail District have different opportunities which could merit different requirements for bistros locating within them; On-street Dining/Rooftop Dining The use of on-street parking spaces and rooftops in addition to the sidewalk area allows the addition of larger outdoor dining areas; Parking Needs The expansion of outdoor dining increases the number of people dining at the restaurant, which increases parking demand;

86 Building Code Requirements The enclosure of outdoor dining areas triggers Building Code regulations such as Energy Code compliance, fire suppression requirements, fire separation distances and exterior wall fire resistive ratings. Incentivizing Seating Capacity Tiers Allowing an increased amount of indoor seating and/or outdoor dining seating for bistros based upon conditional standards such as shared parking, landscaping, green space, etc. At the joint City Commission/Planning Board meeting of June 19th, 2017 the issue of bistro regulations was discussed at length. There was consensus that a review of the requirements and how they relate to the various areas in which they are permitted is warranted. Additionally, Commission members saw good reason to potentially regulate bistros differently depending on the district in which they are located. The Planning Board held several study sessions on this matter and potential revisions and additions to the bistro standards were discussed. Draft language was created to provide options that would eliminate the ability to utilize enclosures year-round, and would not limit the number of outdoor dining seats or require additional parking for those seating areas. There was discussion on whether or not the 65 seat limit should be revised, or whether rooftop dining should be encouraged and what an acceptable railing height is for platform decks. It was suggested that perhaps the Triangle District and Rail District could establish different standards for maximum seating. New draft language was presented that expands interior seating for bistros in the Triangle and Rail Districts to 85 seats with 15 at the bar, while interior seating for the Downtown District remains at 65. Current rooftop dining standards were deemed acceptable, but the board wished to see railings on platform decks limited to 42 in. in height. There was not a consensus on requiring shared parking as an incentive to get more seats at the bar. Mr. Baka discussed Chapter 126 of the Code, sections 3.04, 5.06, 5,07, 5.08, 5.10,5.11, 5.12, 5.13 and Consensus was for sections 3.04, 5.06, 5,07, 5.08, 5.10,5.11, 5.12, change "enclosed platform" to "enclosed platform with a guard rail." Also find a way to consolidate I., J., and K in section 3.04 and other sections with the same language to a more precise limitation for enclosure systems for outdoor dining areas. Mr. Baka clarified for Ms. Whipple-Boyce that vegetation can be planted above the 42 in. railing height. There was general support for a larger number of indoor seating allowed by right for bistros located in the Rail and Triangle Districts. Ms. Whipple-Boyce said it has been proven now that the Class C Liquor License holders and the bistro license holders are succeeding well side-by-side. Therefore, she is very supportive of allowing 85 indoor seats in the Rail and Triangle Districts. Losing parking spaces in the summer with more on-street dining doesn't concern her.

87 Mr. Williams observed that the issue of bistro locations in the Rail District has not been addressed. Ms. Ecker advised that currently they are allowed anywhere within the boundaries of the Rail District with a Special Land Use Permit ("SLUP"). Mr. Williams thought a bistro would significantly adversely impact the residential and live/work areas in the neighborhood. Ms. Whipple-Boyce agreed with establishing some boundaries. From DPS north it is pretty well developed. She would like to see a bistro somewhere south of DPS. Mr. Jeffares was not in favor of boundaries because he would like to see all applications. Mr. Koseck agreed with Mr. Jeffares. Mr. Williams thought maybe it is enough to say there are sensitive areas both in the Rail District and in the Triangle District that need attention whenever a SLUP comes up. Other members agreed. Mr. Williams stated he is in favor of expanding the number of outdoor dining seats in the Rail and Triangle Districts, but is adamantly opposed to increasing them Downtown. That is where most of the Class C Licenses are and he noted that one just closed. There is no question in his mind that bistros have had an effect on some of the Class C licenses in the Downtown area. Further, he suggested having the new rules apply to existing bistros. Ms. Ecker explained that could happen if they came back for any changes. Board members discussed putting a maximum formula in effect for outdoor dining in relationship to indoor dining in the Rail and Triangle Districts. Mr. Share was in favor of a 200% cap there that applies to all outdoor dining, thus outdoor dining (including rooftop dining) could be no more than twice the number of interior dining seats. Mr. Jeffares did not want a cap. He said he would rather have the Planning Board be able to make decisions on the applications vs. having strict rules and not having any applications. The board's consensus was to see this one more time before moving forward.

88 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2018 Department of Public Services 851 S. Eton Street, Birmingham, Michigan Minutes of the regular meeting of the City of Birmingham Planning Board held on March 14, 2018.Chairman Scott Clein convened the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Present: Absent: Chairman Scott Clein; Board Members Stuart Jeffares, Bert Koseck, Janelle Whipple-Boyce, Bryan Williams; Alternate Board Members Nasseen Ramin, Daniel Share; Student Representative Ellie McElroy (left at 9:07 p.m.) Board Members Robin Boyle, Gillian Lazar; Student Representatives Madison Dominato, Sam Fogel Administration: Matthew Baka, Sr. Planner Brooks Cowan, Planner Jana Ecker, Planning Director Carole Salutes, Recording Secretary Bistro Regulations Background: Mr. Baka advised that recently there has been discussion between the City Commission and the Planning Board that perhaps there should be a re-examination of the bistro requirements which already began last year with several study sessions. Issue: As the bistro concept has evolved over the past 10 years, new applicants have sought creative ways to make the establishments distinctive from other restaurants and bistros in the City, and to increase the number of seats through the use of all season outdoor dining. The following issues have been raised: Use of Eisenglass Doing so extends the time period outdoor dining areas are in operation which increases the number of seats for the restaurant as a whole for a majority of the year; District Requirements The Downtown District, Triangle District, and Rail District have different opportunities which could merit different requirements for bistros locating within them; On-street Dining/Rooftop Dining the use of on-street parking spaces and rooftops in addition to the sidewalk area allows the addition of larger outdoor dining areas; Parking Needs the expansion of outdoor dining increases the number of people dining at the restaurant, which increases parking demand; Building Code Requirements the enclosure of outdoor dining areas triggers Building Code regulations such as Energy Code compliance, fire suppression requirements, fire separation distances and exterior wall fire resistive ratings.

89 Incentivizing Seating Capacity Tiers Allowing an increased amount of indoor seating and/or outdoor dining seating for bistros based upon conditional standards such as shared parking, landscaping, green space, etc. At the joint City Commission/Planning Board meeting of June 19th, 2017 the issue of bistro regulations was discussed at length. There was consensus that a review of the requirements and how they relate to the various areas in which they are permitted is warranted. Additionally, Commission members saw good reason to potentially regulate bistros differently depending on the district in which they are located. The Planning Board held several study sessions on this matter and potential revisions and additions to the bistro standards were discussed. Draft language was created to provide options that would eliminate the ability to utilize enclosures year-round, and not to limit the number of outdoor dining seats or require additional parking for those seating areas. There was discussion on whether or not the 65 seat limit should be revised, or whether rooftop dining should be encouraged and what an acceptable railing height is for platform decks. it was suggested that perhaps the Triangle District and Rail District could establish different standards for maximum seating. New draft language has been presented that expands interior seating for bistros in the Triangle and Rail Districts to 85 seats with 15 at the bar, while interior seating for the Downtown District remains at 65. Current rooftop dining standards were deemed acceptable, but the board wished to see railings on platform decks limited to 42 in. in height. On January 10, 2018 the Planning Board reviewed the latest draft ordinance language for the proposed bistro regulation changes. The board requested that the language regarding on-street platforms be adjusted so that the reference to enclosing them is eliminated. Also, eliminate permanent enclosures facilitating year-round dining outdoors. Lastly, railings on platform decks may not exceed 42 in. in height in order to create an open atmosphere where the dining adds vitality to the streetscape. Board members wanted to see the final draft language prior to setting a public hearing. It was agreed the word "permanent" in front of "enclosures" should be eliminated. Discussion confirmed that rooftop dining is allowable under SLUPs on a case-by-case basis. Outdoor dining on the street is excluded from the rooftop number of seats. Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Mr. Koseck to set a public hearing for April 11, 2018 to consider the proposed ordinance amendment. There were no comments from the public at 9:18 p.m. Motion carried, 7-0. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Williams, Koseck, Clein, Jeffares, Ramin, Share, Whipple-Boyce Nays: None Absent: Boyle, Lazar

90 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2018 City Commission Room 151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan Minutes of the regular meeting of the City of Birmingham Planning Board held on March 28, 2018.Chairman Scott Clein convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Present: Absent: Chairman Scott Clein; Board Members Robin Boyle, Stuart Jeffares, Bert Koseck, Janelle Whipple-Boyce, Bryan Williams; Member Daniel Share; Student Representative Ellie McElroy (arrived at 8:35 p.m.) Alternate Board Member Nasseen Ramin; Student Representatives Madison Dominato, Sam Fogel Administration: Brooks Cowan, Planner Jana Ecker, Planning Director Carole Salutes, Recording Secretary PUBLIC HEARING 1. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM: TO AMEND SECTION 3.04, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF THE BISTRO SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT. AND TO AMEND SECTION 5.06, O1 OFFICE DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF THE BISTRO SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT. AND TO AMEND SECTION 5.07, O2 OFFICE DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF THE BISTRO SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT. AND TO AMEND SECTION 5.08, P PARKING DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF THE BISTRO SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT. AND TO AMEND SECTION 5.10, B2 GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, B2B GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, B2C GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF THE BISTRO SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT. AND TO AMEND SECTION 5.11, B3 OFFICE-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF THE BISTRO SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT. AND TO AMEND SECTION 5.12, B4 BUSINESS-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF THE BISTRO SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT.

91 AND TO AMEND SECTION 5.13, MX MIXED USE DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF THE BISTRO SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT. AND TO AMEND SECTION 9.02, DEFINITIONS: BISTRO. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Ms. Ecker recalled the board has been talking about the bistro regulations for almost a year. At a joint City Commission/Planning Board on June 19, 2017 several issues came up that the Commission asked the Planning Board to look at. So, over the past several months the board has been studying this and they have agreed upon language and brought it to a public hearing tonight. Primarily the changes were to set up two different types of bistros, keeping the standards for the number of interior seats and number of seats at the bar the same for Downtown because they are in the Parking Assessment District and there isn't an excessive amount of parking. Also, creating another section for bistros in the Rail District and Triangle District that would allow a greater number of interior seats and a greater number of seats at the bar, given the fact that they couldn't do that unless they provided the required parking. Several other changes were made: Enclosures facilitating year-around dining are not permitted; At the suggestion of the Building Official, railings, platforms or similar barriers should not exceed 42 in. in height; The Building Official also suggested that the word "enclosed" be taken out and replaced with "defined" when talking about an elevated ADA compliant enclosed platform. The bistro standards are proposed to be added in the MX District. Language was added to the existing regulations with regard to the B-3 and B-4 standards on bistros: "No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 10 seats in the Downtown Overlay District, or 15 seats in the Triangle District and Rail District." Board members were in agreement with the changes. Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Mr. Share to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendments to the City Commission with the changes outlined tonight. Motion carried, 7-0. VOICE VOTE Yeas: Williams, Share, Boyle, Jeffares, Koseck, Whipple-Boyce, Williams Nays: None Absent: None The public hearing closed at 7:40 p.m.

92 BIRMINGHAM CITY COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 14, 2018 MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 151 MARTIN 7:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL ROLL CALL: Present, Absent, Mayor Harris Mayor Pro Tem Bordman Commissioner Boutros Commissioner DeWeese Commissioner Hoff Commissioner Nickita Commissioner Sherman None Administration: City Manager Valentine, City Attorney Currier, Senior Planner Baka, Communications Director Byrnes, Assistant City Planner Chapman, Planning Director Ecker, DPS Manager Filipski, Building Official Johnson, Assistant Building Official Morad, City Clerk Mynsberge, City Engineer O Meara, Director of Public Services Wood PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO BISTRO ORDINANCE Mayor Harris opened the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. Senior Planner Baka reviewed the joint Commission/Planning Board effort to consider possible amendments to the Bistro Ordinances, and the proposed Bistro Ordinance amendments as suggested by the Planning Board to the Commission. Senior Planner Baka said the Planning Board recommended eliminating enclosed platforms for dining because another ordinance prohibits enclosures. Mayor Pro Tem Bordman stated: If the desire is to require a platform with a railing, the language should read platform with a railing. If Planning Board does not address rooftop dining so as not to encourage it, rooftop dining will be implicitly allowed by the lack of any language addressing the issue. Planning Director Ecker explained that the Planning Board sought: To not be overbroad in the requirements for outdoor dining, rooftop dining, and parking for outdoor dining so as to encourage its development while still allowing its regulation through the SLUP application process. To maintain the difference between a smaller bistro license and a Class C license by prohibiting enclosed year-round outdoor dining for a Bistro.

93 Commissioner Nickita believed the prohibition on year-round outdoor dining insufficiently addresses the need to keep bistro-licensed restaurants smaller than Class C-licensed restaurants, especially since bistro licenses already technically preclude year-round outdoor dining. Planning Director Ecker explained the Planning Board did not want to limit total outdoor seating by ordinance, but that the SLUP application process may allow the City to sufficiently limit the seating in a bistro-licensed restaurant on a case-by-case basis. Planning Director Ecker confirmed that the proposals potentially allow bistro-licensed restaurants to have unlimited seating in the warmer months, and that this was the Planning Board s intent. Commissioner Nickita stated: His concerns regarding seating capacity were enough for him to not move these amendments forward as currently proposed. A 42 -inch maximum rail would be sufficient, though he would like to see them smaller. Preventing the use of eisenglass around outdoor seating is a positive move to control seating capacity. It might be wise to codify platform standards. Planning Director Ecker replied that when platforms were first discussed by the Planning Board in 2007, they decided to leave the requirements open so as not to inhibit creativity. She continued that the Commission could ask the Planning Board to revisit that, should the Commission see fit. Commissioner Nickita clarified he does not seek to regulate design standards for platforms, but fundamental building standards such as size, materials, edge conditions, sleeper channels, nonskid texture and other related criteria. City Manager Valentine stated that city staff can create a formalized platform standard for the Commission to review and potentially adopt. Commissioner DeWeese said the intended benefits of the bistro were: Activation of the street; Focus on food and not alcohol; and, The creation of intimacy within a so-licensed restaurant. Commissioner DeWeese continued that: Moving seating up to higher floors or rooftops fails to activate the street. He would like to see bistro licenses remain closer to their original intent. Different districts could potentially have different bistro requirements. Mayor Harris suggested that the Commission could approve the proposed ordinance language and direct staff and the Planning Board to re-address outdoor seating issues. Mayor Pro Tem Bordman said:

94 A reconsideration of the outdoor seating issue may also affect the indoor capacity of a bistro-licensed establishment. There are enough other concerns that all proposed amendments should return to the Planning Board. Commissioner Nickita said: The Planning Board should provide seating parameters, and not require the Commission to determine said parameters with every individual bistro SLUP application. He would be comfortable having the Planning Board review the amendments and send them back to the Commission. Norman LePage, owner of Big Rock Chop House, voiced his support for the Commission s suggestions. Senior Planner Baka told Mr. LePage that the bistro seating regulations increased from 65 indoor seats to 85 indoor seats in order to encourage more bistro applications in certain areas of the City. Mayor Pro Tem Bordman told Mr. LePage that should any existing establishment come before the Commission seeking to change their SLUP bistro license, the Commission can require that the establishment come into alignment with the new bistro requirements. Jeremy Sassoon appeared before the Commission and said: There should be a focus group to consider the difference between a bistro license and a Class C license. The City should clarify its standards for bistro licenses and other applications, because he feels he has been denied two licenses for subjective, not objective, reasons. Joe Zane appeared before the Commission and said he would like to see bistro licenses granted in the Triangle District, even if it requires relaxing the standards a bit. There being no further comment, Mayor Harris closed the public hearing at 9:24 p.m. The Commission agreed to send the proposed ordinance amendments back to the Planning Board for reconsideration.

95 Bistro Name Address Liqour License P.B. Recommendation C.C. Approval Previous Use Use Type Restaurant Sq. Ft. Seats for Dining Total Occupancy Public Sidewalk Platform Private Property Total Outdoor Dining Seats Total Seating Eisenglass Bella Piatti 167 Townsend Street Bistro LL 10/27/ /6/2010 Cameron Scott Gallery Retail/Gallery 2, Y Birmingham Sushi Café 377 Hamilton Row Bistro LL 12/12/2012 2/11/2013 Festivities Retail 1, N Bistro Joes Woodward Avenue Bistro LL 7/25/ /19/2007 New Construction - 3, Y Café Via 310 E. Maple Road Bistro LL 7/25/2007 9/24/2007 Marty's Cookie Company Food/Drink 3, Y Churchills Bistro & Cigar Bar 116 S. Old Woodward Avenue Bistro LL 1/26/2011 4/11/2011 Jennifer Convertables Retail/Furniture 3, N Elie's Mediterranean Grill/Bar 263 Pierce Street Bistro LL 6/27/2007 8/6/2007 The Birmingham Bookstore Inc. Retail/Books 2, N Forest Grill 735 Forest Avenue Bistro LL 9/26/ /19/2007 New Construction - 2, N La Strada Café 243 E. Merrill Street Bistro LL 7/22/2015 9/21/2015 Waterworks Retail N Luxe Bar & Grill 525 N. Old Woodward Avenue Bistro LL 3/25/2009 5/18/2009 Aunt Olives Good Food 2 Go Food and Drink 1, N Mad Hatter Café 185 N. Old Woodward Avenue Bistro LL 12/11/2013 2/24/2014 Quiznos Subs Food/Drink 2, N Market North End 474 N. Old Woodward Avenue Bistro LL 11/9/2011 1/9/2012 Root and Sprout Retail Y Salvatore Scallopini 505 N. Old Woodward Avenue Bistro LL 7/27/2007 8/6/ , N Social Kitchen & Bar 225 E. Maple Road Bistro LL 11/30/2011 1/9/2012 Tokyo Sushi Food/Drink 2, Y Tallulah Wine Bar and Bistro 155 S. Bates Street Bistro LL 3/24/2010 5/10/2010 Kaput Kapot Retail 2, N Toast 203 Pierce Street Bistro LL 3/26/2008 6/9/2008 Gerichs Graziella Retail 3, N Townhouse 180 Pierce Street Bistro LL 1/12/2011 2/14/2011 Posh Boutique & Simply Wine Retail N Indoor Seating Outdoor Seating

96 A B C D E F G H I J K Birmingham Restaurants 2 Restaurant Name Address Liquor License Sq Ft. Seats for dining, incl. seats at bar Seats for Outdoor Dining on Public Sidewalk Seats for Outdoor Dining on Platform Outdoor Dining Seats on Private Property Total Outdoor Dining Seats for Establishment Total Seating for Establishment Eisenglass Bistro Licenses Bella Piatti 167 Townsend Street Bistro LL 1, N Birmingham Sushi Café 377 Hamilton Row Bistro LL N Bistro Joe's Woodward Avenue Bistro LL 1, Y Cafe` Via 310 East Maple Road Bistro LL 1, Y Churchill's Bistro & Cigar Bar 116 South Old Woodward Avenue Bistro LL N Elie's Mediterranean Grill/Bar 263 Pierce Street Bistro LL 1, N Forest Grill 735 Forest Avenue Bistro LL 3, N La Strada Caffe 243 E. Merrill Street Bistro LL N Luxe Bar & Grill 525 North Old Woodward Avenue Bistro LL 1, N Mad Hatter Café 185 North Old Woodward Bistro LL N Market North End 474 North Old Woodward Avenue Bistro LL Y Salvatore Scallopini 505 North Old Woodward Avenue Bistro LL 2, N Social Kitchen & Bar 225 East Maple Road Bistro LL Y Tallulah Wine Bar and Bistro 155 South Bates Street Bistro LL 2, N Toast 203 Pierce Street Bistro LL 3, N Townhouse 180 Pierce Street Bistro LL N Quota licenses 220 Restaurant 220 East Merrill Street Quota LL 6, N Vinotecca 210 South Old Woodward Bistro LL Y Cameron's Steakhouse 115 Willits Street Quota LL** 6, None 214 Dick O' Dow's 160 West Maple Road Quota LL 5, N Emagine Theatre 250 N. Old Woodward Quota LL 31, N Hyde Park Prime Steakhouse 201 South Old Woodward Avenue Quota LL 12 12, 2 Sofas 0 N Phoenicia 588 South Old Woodward Avenue Quota LL 3, N Rojo Mexican Bistro 250 East Merrill Street Quota LL N Sidecar Slider Bar 2506 Merrill Quota LL N Springdale Golf Course 316 Strathmore Quota LL 0 Streetside Seafood 273 Pierce Street Quota LL 1, N The Community House Café 380 South Bates Street Quota LL 0 The Rugby Grille 100 Townsend Street Quota LL N Outside PSD Big Rock 245 S Eton Quota LL 6, N Springdale Golf Course 316 Strathmore Development LL 0 Lincoln Hills Golf Course 2666 West 14 Mile Road Quota LL 0 Griffin Claw 575 S. Eton Brewer N Licenses Not In Use Peabody's Dining & Spirits Woodward Avenue Quota LL 5, None 275 Palladium (Au Cochon & Arthur Ave) 260 N. Old Woodward Quota LL 0 Palladium (Barrio) 201 Hamilton Row Quota LL 0 RHG Fish Market 115 Willits Quota LL** 0 Economic Development Licenses All Seasons 111 Elm Development LL 189 None 189 N The Stand Gastro Bistro Woodward Avenue Development LL 207 None 207 N Triple Nickel 555 South Old Woodward Development LL Y Non-Liquor Establishment Beyond Juice 270 West Maple Road n N Brooklyn Pizza 111 Henrietta Street n N Commonwealth Cafe 300 Hamilton Row n N Cucina Medoro 768 North Old Woodward Avenue n None 0 Cupcake Station 136 North Old Woodward n N Greek Islands Coney Restaurant 221 Hamilton Row n None 0 Hunter House Hamburgers Woodward Avenue n None 0 Leo's Coney Island 154 South Old Woodward Avenue n None 0 Liquid Lunch Cafe (Inside Be Well) 750 South Old Woodward Avenue n None 0 Panera Bread 100 North Old Woodward Avenue n N Pita Cafe 239 North Old Woodward Avenue n None 0 Primo's Pizza 996 South Adams Road n None 0

97 A B C D E F G H I J K Qdoba 795 East Maple Road n N Shish Kabob Express Woodward Avenue n None 0 Stacked Deli 233 North Old Woodward Avenue n None 0 Starbucks 100 North Old Woodward n N Succo Fresco Café 600 North Old Woodward n N Sy Thai Cafe' 315 Hamilton Row n None 0 Toss-Ups Woodward Avenue n None 0 Touch of India Cuisine 297 East Maple Road n None 0 N Try it Raw 213 East Maple Road n None 0 N * Temporarily closed for renovations **Mitchell's and Camerons were sharing one license. The other license is being held by the company. Legend Bistro License Quota License License not in use Economic Development License Non-Liquor Establishment

98 MEMORANDUM Planning Division DATE: June 13th, 2018 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Board Brooks Cowan, City Planner Downtown Birmingham Redline Retail District Birmingham has 3.25 linear miles of a Redline Retail District that consists of 278 businesses. After approving a definition for personal services in their relation to the definition of commercial uses in retail, the City Commission has asked the Planning Board to evaluate the Redline Retail boundaries and identify buildings that may be less suitable for retail. The Planning Board has reviewed maps categorizing the range of uses throughout the District, evaluated the distribution of asking rents, vacancy locations, and examined images of building frontages. The Planning Board has also reviewed maps of storefronts proximity to metered parking and structure parking in relation to retail use. General findings were that Maple Road and the downtown core has the highest demand for retail, while secondary locations further from the downtown core, and further from on-street parking have a broader range of uses. Supplementary market data from Buxton Retail Consultants and a retail market report by Deloitte were included for review as well. Conclusions from these reports are that Birmingham is a high end demographic, and that on a macro-scale, high end retailers targeting high end demographics are experiencing growth. Retail Analysis for the review by the Planning Board includes the following: 1.) A map of Birmingham Shopping District s Assessment Area had previously been provided to illustrate the boundaries of District 1 versus District 1A (Figure 1). Payment methods related to each district were request and have recently been obtained. Building owners in the Downtown Assessment Area 1 are charged $0.494/SF for their first floor area and then $0.196/SF for their 2 nd floor area and above. Building owners in Downtown Assessment Area 1A are charged $0.247/SF for their first floor area and $0.095 for their 2 nd floor area and above. Payments are made once a year. 2.) A map of downtown rental rates was requested to help determine the level of demand throughout downtown. It is of note that there are multiple factors affecting asking rent including access, visibility, size, age, and quality of the building. Rents were obtained from various online sources and only reflect published asking rents; the map and table do not reflect actual contract prices. In considering the data given for retail spaces of similar age and size around 1,500 SF:

99 The West Maple sites near the downtown core ask around $40, while the East and West ends of Maple ask around $35. Locations on N. Old Woodward at the bottom of the hills across from Booth Park ask around $30-$35 while locations further north near Oak Street at the end of the boundary ask around $20-$25. The spaces on Hamilton Row and Willits ask around $25 for both the smaller, older retail spaces, as well as the larger spaces around 3,000 SF in the Palladium building and Willits which are newer stock. The map and table of data have been provided in Figures 2 & 3. 3.) On April 11 th, after reviewing information related to market data and parking, the Planning Board requested maps proposing new boundaries of a Retail District. They asked staff to examine proposals for a multiple tiered system with a different set of permissible uses within each tier. There was a general consensus that they would like to see four different categories presented. On May 9 th, 2018, four tiers of 1 st floor uses were proposed, along with a use matrix for each tier. The Planning Board asked that the uses from the Non-Conforming 4 th tier be merged with the General Greenline 3 rd tier, whose table and description of uses have been outlined below. The main difference between tier 2 and 3 is that tier 2 allows retail services (Personal Services), while tier 3 allows retail services, office and medical. Image example for tier 1 have been provided, while images of areas for discussion have been provided for tier 2 and 3. A map of non-conforming uses involving office & medical on the first floor was provided on May 9 th in order to guide the decision process for the 3 rd tier (General Greenline). This map has been revised to also include retail-service locations (Personal Services) that have an office like setup to help guide decisions for the 2 nd tier (Blueline Business) of Retail Goods and Services. These pseudo-office spaces are mostly comprised of real estate services and financial consulting. A table of these businesses has also been included. (Please see figures 4 and 5). First Floor Permissible Uses Redline Retail Blueline Business General Greenline Retail Goods X X X Restaurant X X X Salon/Spa X X X Entertainment X X X Retail-Services X X Medical/Dental Office X X

100 FIRST FLOOR USE DESCRIPTIONS Tier 1 - Redline Retail: Retail Goods, Restaurants, Salon-Spa, Entertainment Primary location downtown. W. Maple S. Old Woodward Pierce

101 Tier 2 - Blueline Business: Retail Goods, Restaurants, Salon-Spa, Entertainment, Retail-Services Secondary locations that provide retail opportunities and businesses that are complimentary to the population and street activation of downtown. Allows personal services but not office or medical. Discussion Zones: N. Old Woodward and Willits Hamilton Row Brown Street

102 Tier 3 - General Greenline: Retail Goods, Restaurants, Salon-Spa, Entertainment, Retail-Services, Medical Secondary and tertiary locations that provide retail opportunities, businesses that are complimentary the population and street activation of downtown. Eliminates need to distinguish between personal services and office because they are both permitted. Discussion Zones S. Old Woodward N. Old Woodward N. Old Woodward at Euclid

103 4.) In the May 9 th, 2017 meeting, there seemed to be general consensus that uses could be expanded on the north and south ends of the boundary. Much of the concern and debate regarding the boundaries of the proposed tiers has been in areas identified as Anchor Zones in the Downtown Birmingham 2016 Plan, and how they connect to the outer edges of downtown. The 2016 Master Plan identifies five retail zones, three of which are on Old Woodward in the Redline Retail Boundary (See Figure 7). It calls for development in identified Anchor Zones in order to create a better transition between the three retail zones on Old Woodward. In the Retail section of the Downtown Birmingham 2016 plan, it states: Retail 5: Findings Birmingham s five primary shopping areas are isolated from each other, significantly limiting impulse cross-shopping between them (pg. 31). Retail 5: Discussion Anchor or destination developments at the perimeter of the CBD would spread out retail. This would not only prevent too much congestion in a single area, it would also encourage pedestrian movement between shopping districts by bringing shoppers to the threshold of the adjacent shopping area (pg. 32). In order to determine how retail has spread out in these Anchor Zones, a map of new developments in these zones since the 2016 Plan was adopted has been provided (Figure 8), as well as a table of current uses within each Anchor Zone below. In the North Anchor Zone at Oakland/Willits and N. Old Woodward, there have been four developments, one under construction (Brookside), and one currently under proposal (Bates Street Project). Building Tenant Category Palladium Bianchi's Salon Vacant (The Morrie) Vacant (Restaurant) Lucido's Retail-Goods Blush Couture Bride Retail-Goods Emagine Entertainment Cryotherapy Retail-Services Huge Office The Willits TD Ameritrade Retail-Services (Pseudo-Office) Darakjian Retail-Goods Vacant Vacant (Restaurant) 325 N. Old Woodward Google Office National Realty Center Retail-Services (Pseudo-Office) Centigrade Office Designs Unlimited Retail-Goods Beal Bank Retail-Services Flemings Restaurant 322 N Old Woodward SAIC Office

104 In the East Anchor Zone at Maple and Woodward, there have been two developments and two projects currently under proposal for the east anchor (Peabody and Woodward). Building Tenant Category Greenleaf Trust Vacant (Hazel Ravines) Vacant (Restaurant) Balmoral Lady Jane's Salon (Not in Red Line Retail) Pnc Bank Retail-Services Birmingham Roast Restaurant In the South Anchor Zone at S. Old Woodward and Brown, there has been one development and one project under construction (Daxton Hotel). Building Tenant Category The Forefront MA Engineering Retail-Services (Pseudo-Office) The West Anchor Zone at Maple and Bates has not experienced new development, although the building currently occupied by McCann Detroit was renovated in the early 2000s. An issue for discussion could be whether or not these developments have spread out retail and encouraged pedestrian movement between shopping districts as the 2016 plan suggested. This issue is especially relevant to the new developments (since 1996) in the N. Old Woodward Anchor Zone where there are 17 first floor spaces composed of: 4 retail goods 4 retail services 4 offices 1 Restaurant 1 Entertainment 1 Salon 2 Vacant (Former/Proposed Restaurants)

105 5.) MAPS OF SUGGESTED BOUNDARIES: In deciding on the boundaries of a three tiered system, it is important to be able to explain why specific areas should not be the other two. 1.) No Change a. This would result in the conclusion that the Planning Board wishes to see true retail maintained in downtown Birmingham, and that there is sufficient demand for retail throughout the current Redline Retail boundary. 2.) Overlay Zoning Based + General Greenline on N & S Ends a. Associates 1 st floor use with the overlay zoning categories and permissible height. b. Areas with greater height allowance in D4 and D5 have stricter 1 st floor retail requirements, while areas with lower height allowance in D2 and D3 have a broader range of first floor uses. c. Buildings on the north and south ends of the boundary were allotted General Greenline due to distance from downtown. 3.) Mixed Categories a. Option 3 requires retail in the core of downtown, expands uses in anchor areas and secondary streets with Blueline Business, and keeps the ends of the boundary General Greenline. 4.) Mixed Categories a. Option 4 requires retail in the core of downtown, expands uses in anchor areas and secondary streets with Blueline Business, and extends the boundary of the General Greenline. b. This option expands the General Greenline Boundary on North Old Woodward and South Old Woodward due to the Parking Assessment District, the mix of uses in these sections, and their distance from the core of downtown. 5.) Redline & Greenline a. Hits the extremes of each spectrum. Areas are either strictly retail, or have the broadest availability of uses. b. Option 5 acknowledges the core retail areas, while expanding the permissible uses surrounding them. c. The goal of expanding uses in the General Greenline Boundary is to compliment the core retail area with more people and businesses on its perimeter, and to allow a broader mix of uses in secondary and tertiary parts of downtown.

106 FOR DISCUSSION: In relation to the intent of the Downtown Birmingham 2016 Plan, and for issues to consider in determining boundaries of permissible 1 st floor uses: 1.) Is there enough demand for retail in Birmingham to justify 3.25 miles of a Redline Retail Boundary? a. Have the new developments in anchor zones demonstrated that there is sufficient demand for first floor retail - that it would spread out from the CBD? 2.) Does/will development in the identified anchor zones act as a transition and encourage continuity of walkability between the three retail districts? a. Or, are the CBD, N. Old Woodward, and S. Old Woodward separate districts of themselves that are complimented by the businesses and people in the anchor zones?

107 Birmingham Shopping District Assessment Area Figure 1 Figure 1

108 Historic Asking Rents Map for Tenants: Figure 2 *Data Obtained from various online sources and is a reflection of posted asking price, not actual lease contract price.

109 Historic Asking Rents Table for Tenants: Address Name Category Section Rent Square Feet year 99 W Maple Rd Gazelle Sports Retail-Goods Section 2 $ , W Maple Rd Vacant Vacant Section 2 $ , W Maple Rd Vacant Vacant Section 2 $ , W Maple Rd Artloft Inc Retail-Goods Section 2 $ , W Maple Rd Vacant Vacant Section 2 $ , S Old Woodward Ave Rococo Retail-Goods Section 1 $ , E Maple Rd Jarbo collection Retail-Goods Section 2 $ E Maple Rd Barbara Boz Boutique Retail-Goods Section 2 $ S Old Woodward Ave Detroit Trading Retail-Services Section 4 $ , S Old Woodward Ave Vacant Vacant Section 1 $ , S Old Woodward Ave Vacant Vacant Section 1 $ , E Maple Rd Salon Legato Salon/Spa Section 2 $ , W Maple Rd Blue Mercury Retail-Goods Section 2 $ , Woodward The Stand Restaurant Section 2 $ , N Old Woodward The Pearl Construction Section 3 $ , Pierce St James Fine Jewelry Retail-Goods Section 5 $ Pierce St Wooly Company Retail-Goods Section 6 $ N Old Woodward Ave Ethan Allen Retail-Goods Section 1 $ , N Old Woodward Ave Birmingham Wine Retail-Goods Section 3 $ , S Old Woodward Ave Vacant Vacant Section 4 $ , N Old Woodward Ave Vacant Vacant Section 1 $ , N Old Woodward Ave Level One MultiSport Retail-Goods Section 3 $ , W Maple Rd Optik Birmingham Retail-Goods Section 2 $ , S Old Woodward Ave Pogo Retail-Goods Section 1 $ , N Old Woodward Ave Esquire Cleaners Retail-Services Section 3 $ Hamilton Row 7 Greens Restaurant Section 5 $ , N Old Woodward Ave Mad Hatter Restaurant Section 1 $ , W Maple Rd Vacant Vacant Section 2 $ , N Old Woodward Ave Bianchi's Salon Salon/Spa Section 1 $ , N Old Woodward Ave Lucido Retail-Goods Section 1 $ , E Maple Rd Supernatural Retail-Goods Section 2 $ Willits St Darakjian Retail-Goods Section 5 $ , E Maple Rd Social Kitchen Restaurant Section 2 $ , N Old Woodward Ave Kohler Plumbing Supply Retail-Goods Section 3 $ , Hamilton Row Vacant Vacant Section 5 $ N Old Woodward Ave Baus The Grooming House Salon/Spa Section 3 $ , N Old Woodward Ave Felicia/Papillon Blanc Salon/Spa Section 3 $ ,350 Figure 3

110 Non-Conforming due to Office, Medical, or Business to Business Use in the 1st 20, or Pseudo-Office due to 1st Floor Office Like Composition Figure 4

111 Table of Tenants in Non-Conforming or Pseudo-Office Figure 5 Address Name Category Section Non-Conforming 280 N Old Woodward Ave Fidelity Office Section 1 Non-Conforming 151 S Old Woodward Ave Office Office Section 1 Non-Conforming 370 E Maple Rd Shift Digital Office Section 2 Non-Conforming 720 N Old Woodward Ave John M Susko Medical Section 3 Non-Conforming 538 N Old Woodward Ave Vein Center Medical Section 3 Non-Conforming 532 N Old Woodward Dentist Medical Section 3 Non-Conforming 800 N Old Woodward Ave Brogan & Partners Office Section 3 Non-Conforming 640 N Old Woodward Ave Office Office Section 3 Non-Conforming 640 N Old Woodward Ave Office Office Section 3 Non-Conforming 630 N Old Woodward Ave Brian Neeper Architecture Office Section 3 Non-Conforming 610 N Old Woodward Ave Di Pilla Office Section 3 Non-Conforming 460 N Old Woodward Ave Junior League of Bham Office Section 3 Non-Conforming 450 N Old Woodward Flex Cable Office Section 3 Non-Conforming 380 N Old Woodward Ave Office Office Section 3 Non-Conforming 350 N Old Woodward Ave The Aikens Building Office Section 3 Non-Conforming 322 N Old Woodward Ave SAIC USA Inc Office Section 3 Non-Conforming 373 S Old Woodward Ave Masri Clinic Medical Section 4 Non-Conforming 300 S Old Woodward Ave Lutz Financial Office Section 4 Non-Conforming 1000 S Old Woodward Ave Office Office Section 4 Non-Conforming 359 S Old Woodward Ave Tri-Phase Office Section 4 Non-Conforming 401 S Old Woodward Ave Conway MacKenzie Office Section 4 Non-Conforming 114 Willits Google Office Section 5 Non-Conforming 379 Hamilton Fow Banco Office Section 5 Non-Conforming 360 Hamilton Row Luxe Homes Office Section 5 Non-Conforming 215 Hamilton Row Office Office Section 5 Non-Conforming 511 Pierce St Women's Excellence Medical Section 6 Non-Conforming 480 Pierce St Office Office Section 6 Non-Conforming 255 W Brown St Wells Fargo/Office Office Section 6 Non-Conforming 180 E Brown St Industrial Management Office Section 6 Non-Conforming 250 E Brown St DTE Office Section 6 Non-Conforming 260 E Brown St Office Office Section 6 Non-Conforming 217 S Old Woodward Ave Birmingham Realty Retail-Services Section 1 Pseudo-Office 255 S Old Woodward Ave John Adams Mortgage Retail-Services Section 1 Pseudo-Office 275 S Old Woodward Max Broock Realtors Retail-Services Section 1 Pseudo-Office 670 S Old Woodward Ave Detroit Trading Retail-Services Section 4 Pseudo-Office 400 S Old Woodward Ave The Forefront/ MA Engineering Retail-Services Section 4 Pseudo-Office 442 S Old Woodward Ave Hall & Hunter Realtors Retail-Services Section 4 Pseudo-Office 500 S Old Woodward Ave Investment Consutling Group Retail-Services Section 4 Pseudo-Office 880 S Old Woodward Ave Berkshire Hathaway HWWB Realtors Retail-Services Section 4 Pseudo-Office 415 S Old Woodward Ave Signature Sotheby's Retail-Services Section 4 Pseudo-Office 513 S Old Woodward Ave Cranbrook Realty Group Retail-Services Section 4 Pseudo-Office 110 Wilits St National Realty Centers Retail-Services Section 5 Pseudo-Office 105 Willits St TD Ameritrade Retail-Services Section 5 Pseudo-Office 330 Hamilton Row Jeff Glover & Associates Retail-Services Section 5 Pseudo-Office 400 Hamilton Row Pluto Retail-Services Section 5 Pseudo-Office 249 Pierce Street Schechter Retail-Services Section 6 Pseudo-Office 260 Martin St Shain Park Realtors Retail-Services Section 6 Pseudo-Office 200 E Brown St Detroit IT Retail-Services Section 6 Pseudo-Office 294 E Brown St Coldwell Bankers Retail-Services Section 6 Pseudo-Office

112 Core Retail Loop Identified in 1996 Figure 6

113 Anchor Locations Identified to Improve Transition from CBD to Perimeter Figure 7

114 Developments Within Proposed Anchor Location Since Downtown Plan in 1996 Figure 8

115 Option 1: No Change Figure 9 Redline Retail

116 Option 2: Overlay Zoning Based + General Greenline on N & S Figure 10 Redline Retail Blueline Business General Greenline

117 Option 3: Mixed Categories Figure 11 Redline Retail Blueline Business General Greenline

118 Option 4: Mixed Categories Figure 12 Redline Retail Blueline Business General Greenline

119 Option 5: Redline Retail or General Greenline Figure 13 Redline Retail General Greenline

120 Figure 14 Redline Retail District = 3.27 Linear Miles 278 Total Storefronts along the Boundary

121 Downtown Zoning Districts Figure 15 Zoning Districts

122 Land Use Matrix Appendix O2 B2 B2B B3 B4 Commercial Uses adult bookstore - R* R* - - adult motion picture theater - R* R* - - alcoholic beverage sales A* alcoholic beverage sales (off-premise consumption) - A* A* - - alcoholic beverage sales (on-premise consumption) - S S S S animal medical hospital any use incidental to principal use art gallery P - - P - artisan use auto laundry - S S - - auto rental agency auto sales agency - P P - P auto show room P - automobile repair and conversion bakery P P P - P bank/credit union with drive-thru bank (with drive-through facilities) S bank (without drive-through facilities)- P P P P P barber shop/beauty salon P P P P P bathing establishment - R* R* - - bistro S* S* S* - - bookstore boutique P commercial or office use incidental to principal use A catering - P P - P child care center - P P - P clinic P clothing store P P P P P coffee shop P - delicatessen - P P P P department store - P - P P drive-in facility - S S - - drug store - P P P* P dry cleaning - P P P P electronic video game - R* R* - - essential services family day care home food or drink establishment S* P* P* - P* funeral home - S S - - furniture - P P - P gasoline full service station - S* S* - - gasoline service station - S S - - gift shop/flower shop P P P P P greenhouse - P P - P greenhouse - private P = Permitted Use A = Accessory Use S = Special Land Use Permit Required R = Regulated Use Figure 16

123 Land Use Matrix Appendix O2 B2 B2B B3 B4 Commercial Uses grocery store - P P - P hair replacement establishment P hardware store - P P - P health club/studio P - home occupation hotel - P P P P interior design shop P jewelry store P P P P P kennel A* A* A* - - laboratory - medical/dental A* A* A* A* A* laundry P* - leather and luggage goods shop P massage facility or massage school - R* R* - - mechanical amusement device - R* R* - - motel - P P - P motorcycle sales or rental agency - R* R* - - neighborhood convenience store - P P - P nightclub - R* R* - - office P P P P P outdoor café A* A* A* A* A* outdoor display A* A* A* A* A* outdoor storage - A* A* - - paint - P P - P party store - P P - P pawnshop - R* R* - - pet grooming facility pharmacy A* photography studio P billiard games - R* R* - regulated uses - R* R* renting of rooms restaurant P - retail fur sales cold storage facility - A - - A retail photocopying - P P P P school-business - P P P P shelter building A* - shoe store/shoe repair - P P P P showroom of electricians/plumbers - P P - P sign - A A A A specialty food store P specialty home furnishing shop P P = Permitted Use A = Accessory Use S = Special Land Use Permit Required R = Regulated Use C = City Commission Approval Required Figure 17

124 1/4 Mile and 1/2 Mile Radius from Maple and Old Woodward Figure 18

125 Figure 19

126 Parking Assessment District Figure 20

127 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM PLANNING BOARD ACTION ITEMS OF WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, Retail Discussion Mr. Williams thought it was most helpful that Mr. Cowan's report start with looking at things by geographic area. Mr. Cowan offered an overview of what he did and what the findings were. The Planning Dept. was directed by the City Commission/City Manager to evaluate the current geographic boundary of the Redline Retail District, to evaluate current properties that were not built to support firstfloor retail uses, and to evaluate prohibition of desks, work stations, and office related amenities placed within the first 20 ft. of depth of window frontage, which wasn't necessarily addressed in this report. To start off, he divided the Redline Retail Boundary into six sections. The Redline Retail District has 278 storefronts that predominantly consist of retail goods stores. This category makes up approximately 38% of the total businesses in the Redline Retail District. The Maple Rd. section has the highest percentage of retail goods which occupy 67% of the storefronts. Sections 1 and 3 along Old Woodward Ave. have the next highest retail goods percentages of 37% to 39%. Sections 5 and 6 are secondary streets to the downtown core. They have a higher percentage and total amount of retail services than Sections 1, 2, and 3. Section 3 has a higher instance of office and medical use on the first floor in comparison to the rest of the Redline Retail District. Section 3 also has a larger number of buildings that are less suitable for retail than other sections. The City of Birmingham is anticipating four new buildings to be constructed in the Redline Retail District in the near future. A total of 20,984 additional sq. ft. of first floor commercial space will be provided with the construction of these buildings. The average vacancy rates for the six sections in the Redline Retail District is 6.47% ranging from 0% in Sections 3 and 6 to 14.0% in Section1. However, six of the eight spaces in Section 1 have window signage indicating that a new tenant intends to move in. If these spaces become occupied, Section 1's vacancy rate would drop from 14.04% to about 4%. Buildings deemed less suitable for retail are predominantly located on N. Old Woodward Ave. in Section 3, and on Brown St. in Section 5. It was thought that the asking retail prices in similar communities as well as in Somerset Mall, just for comparison purposes, would be a good question to ask the retail consultants. Mr. Williams asked to have pedestrian counts if they are historically available. That is so important in terms of retail. Ms. Ecker confirmed they do have some of that data. Additionally she went to the City Commission to try to get permission to do bicycle and pedestrian counts at eleven or twelve intersections throughout the City, most of them Downtown. The Commission approved the counts starting in September of this year and in May of next year.

128 In response to Mr. Jeffares, Mr. Cowan said he could provide maps of the Parking Assessment District and metered parking. Mr. Koseck wondered who is using the parking and where they are coming from. Ms. Ecker stated the Birmingham Shopping District ("BSD") has some of that data where they have interviewed shoppers on the street and asked them where they came from. Chairman Clein added that any recent data the BSD has collected would be appreciated. Mr. Share said it would be helpful to understand what outreach the BSD has done over the last couple of years to recruit merchants and what reaction they have gotten, positive and negative, segmented by these sections, if possible. To the extent that they got feedback on asking rates, it would be useful to understand why a merchant did not come to Birmingham. That relates to the qualifying point as to the general demand for retail, perceived or otherwise. Mr. Koseck asked how the typical rent for professional office compares to retail, and compares to medical office. Chairman Clein noted the board is not trying to figure out a retention strategy or an attraction strategy; they are trying to figure out appropriate land uses, but grounded in reality. Mr. Jeffares noted that he talked to two businesses recently and asked why they were moving. Some said "parking." Conducting exit interviews may determine the reason why people in certain areas are leaving. Ms. Whipple-Boyce wanted to know a little more about how an exit interview would be conducted before going ahead with that recommendation. Also, she made the point that garden level spaces may not be conducive to true retail in certain situations. It was agreed that the board must figure out as things turn over, where they want them to be in the future related to the changes that are going to be taking place over the next five years. Chairman Clein thought it would be interesting to know if the BSD has developed an area that they see as prime, versus a secondary. Any sort of strategy they have would be helpful for this board as well as any recent market studies. To summarize, Ms. Ecker listed what the Planning Board would like from the BSD: Where are the shoppers coming from; What is their outreach strategy to recruit retailers and what is the response they are receiving from the retailers; Asking prices in Downtown - Is there a lack of demand or is the actual asking price scaring people away; Exit interview information and their market strategy - prime versus secondary area; Any updates on their market studies. Chairman Clein said he would be more comfortable with their opinions of the data rather than asking Mr. Cowan to go through all of the asking rates.

129 Ms. Whipple-Boyce said a nice compromise would be to give property owners an option to do something differently in their space if they can legally have a portion of the back as an office use and still maintain their other two floors of office. Then the front could be redefined clearly as retail and the back can even have the ability to activate the alleys if the office use is accessed through the back. She was hopeful that could come about a little sooner than later. Chairman Clein asked to have any implications from the Multi-Modal Plan related to pedestrian activity. At 9:15 p.m. the Chairman asked for public comments. Mr. Scott Aikens thought the report was really interesting and nicely done. They do the leasing for the Village of Rochester Hills. He emphasized it is really complicated with the tons of changes that are going on and it is a deal maker's business to fill in the vacancies. It was agreed to continue this study session to April 11, 2018.

130 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, April 11, 2018 City Commission Room Downtown Birmingham Redline Retail District Mr. Cowan noted that the City Commission and City Manager have directed the Planning Board to continue studying the issue of retail use in Downtown Birmingham. On March 14, 2018 the retail report was presented relating to the requested information: The Downtown core is predominantly retail goods with increases in retail services, offices, and medical uses in the outer sections of the Redline Retail District; Buildings less suitable were generally located along N. Old Woodward Ave. and Brown St. Approximately 75% of the stores in the Redline Retail District are within a quarter mile of the intersection of Old Woodward Ave. and Maple Rd. Responding to that, the Planning Board requested a map of parking data, especially metered parking. Mr. Cowan stated that he found the tenant spaces around the intersection of Old Woodward Ave. and Maple Rd. as well as Pierce and Maple Rd. had the highest number of about 740 to 760 metered spaces. The area around N. Old Woodward Ave. had 200 or so metered spaces. A conversation with Ms. Ingrid Tighe of the Birmingham Shopping District ("BSD") revealed that the BSD does not prioritize primary and secondary locations, nor do they do exit interviews. In terms of market studies, the BSD maintains a tenant table which categorizes their retailer types as well as monthly occupancy data. Their consultant, Buxton, categorizes the demographics of people within a 10, 15, and 20 minute drive- time radius. Basically, they are saying it is a wellto-do area. Birmingham has a nice, wealthy base to draw from so they should target high end retailers. Buxton's main objective according to their contract is to identify retail slippage and ideal tenants that match Birmingham's demographics. Mr. Williams said the one thing he took from this is that if Birmingham is moving in the high end market, the high end market should be pretty strong for Birmingham in terms of growth. Mr. Boyle suggested that the board needs to be looking at how the variables they are studying can change moving forward. Secondly, he noted the board knows a lot about our behavior, a lot about the behavior of the tenants; however they don't know much about the behavior of the building owners. What are they charging over time for their frontages in Birmingham and to what extent are they adapting to changing conditions. Mr. Koseck noted that a lot of Birmingham's stock consists of older buildings and may not work for Class A high end retailers. Ms. Ecker advised the rental rates in Birmingham are less than on average than what is available for the same size space at Somerset Mall. However, Mr.

131 Williams pointed out there is one big difference, and that is ease of access to the high end stores which is more difficult here. The biggest challenge that Birmingham has is the outlying areas that are within the Redline Retail District. Mr. Jeffares advised that the thing about retail is that density is needed. At Somerset it is 100 percent retail and they have standard hours. Competition is tough and he wondered what can be done to improve the carrot for people potential retailers. Look at some of the more creative things such as 20 ft. retail as seen in other large international cities, mitigating the climate, and encouraging pop-ups. Mr. Share focused on the Planning Board's tasks: To the extent that the N. and S. ends of Old Woodward Ave. aren't packed with retail, is there something that can be done to cause them to be retail or is it that there is not much demand down there. Try to figure out what might incentivize more retail frontage in outlying areas. This might include increasing the amount of allowable office if retail is allowed in the first 20 or 30 ft. of the main floor. He felt that there will be sufficient demand for the foreseeable future to maintain the cluster around the intersection of Old Woodward Ave. and Maple Rd. Ms. McElroy also agreed with making the Redline Retail District smaller. She thought if the City would focus on getting more stores to fill in the main area, then the stores on the outskirts will become more necessary and bring more attention there in the future. Ms. Ecker noted that from a planning perspective you generally see retail concentrated with other retailers and it continues out until there is some sort of a break in the streetscape or storefronts that deters pedestrians from continuing, such as parking lots, blank walls, lace of retail uses and similar lower levels of activity. Ms. McElroy thought one of the goals for the outlying area might be to bring in a big company anchor store that is very well known and then filling up the rest of the space with smaller stores. so that when people go to the big store they then have a reason to walk around and look into the smaller retailers. As to the direction from the City Commission and the City Manager, Ms. Ecker asked if there is some consensus that maybe the Red Line Retail Boundary needs to be shrunk or have a tiered system within it? Mr. Boyle thought perhaps they should ask staff to bring back a chart that shows the constraints and opportunities within an existing Redline Area. If we shrink the Redline Retail District, what would happen in the areas that have been pulled out; and if we think some of those are undesirable potentials, what might we do to either avoid them or incentivize people to behave in that area in ways we are happy about? Mr. Share said the question is whether there are resources around who can help us think that through. The name that comes to his mind is Robert Gibbs. Ms. Ecker observed they could ask some of the commercial brokers Downtown to come in and give an idea of what their typical clients are looking for when they are considering whether or not to locate in Birmingham.

132 Mr. Koseck stated that Taubman has full-time people who are experts in understanding how people behave and where they shop. He hoped the Planning Board could find a third-party independent who could help them. It is not going to be the broker because the City doesn't pay them. He advocated right sizing the Redline Retail District so that is smaller. The more successful that becomes the more it will force retailers into the areas beyond. Mr. Jeffares noted they can't set rent rates, but there are things the Planning Board and the City Commission can do to try to ensure success. Otherwise in another ten years he fears they will have their second shrinking of the Redline District meeting. Ms. McElroy said one thing to think about is what we want Birmingham to be like and how we want people to see Birmingham in the future. See if there is some sort of vibe of Birmingham that would make people want to come here. Make sure our plans align with our future goal. Ms. Ecker said the next direction from the City Commission and the City Manager is to address the issue of what to do about existing buildings that may not be the best to support retail uses - exclude them or give them different rules. Mr. Share observed the problem with the strip of office buildings on N. Old Woodward Ave. is that the first floor slopes, and it would be very expensive to put in glass. Geographically the area is very challenging. Mr. Boyle thought maybe they should be taken out of the retail geography and allowed to flourish. Ms. McElroy said when she looks at the small stores or boutiques on the north end they look like office buildings. She thinks that is what prevents people from moving across to the other side of the road and seeing what they have to offer. Mr. Williams said in the summer there is a lot of foot traffic on the north side because of Booth Park and the Farmers Market. Board members agreed this strong little retail cluster does not have to be contiguous. Maybe there could be three areas of Retail District. Ms. Whipple-Boyce observed there is not so much draw to want to be on the south end of Old Woodward Ave. With the right incentives, maybe something cool could happen there. Mr. Boyle thought a pop-up incubator area might be allowed in an area that needs a driver. Mr. Cowan wondered if there is sufficient demand in Birmingham to have 3.25 miles of strictly retail. So in terms of tiers, determine where there is less demand for retail and allow a broader range of uses. Ms. Ecker advised that another direction to the Planning Board is to evaluate whether to do a prohibition of desks, workstations and office related amenities placed within the first 20 ft. of depth of window frontage within the Retail District and recommend ordinance language to address the issue. The issue that came up at the last study session is if there is the 20 ft. of depth for retail and people put office behind, (a) do we want to allow that, and (b) does the language need to be changed because the Overlay limits office to two floors?

133 Ms. Whipple-Boyce said the extra office use on the first floor allows an opportunity to activate the alleys and the extra amount of office space rewards the property owners. The board was divided on whether the 20 ft. of retail could survive unless people have immediate access to the store. It was concluded that new ordinance language affecting the first 20 ft. of depth would not change what exists but it would affect the future. Maybe instead of 20 ft., it should be a percentage of the floor that can be activated for retail use. Ms. Whipple-Boyce supported reaching out to the building owners and inviting them to these study sessions. Ask them who their tenants are. Mr. Boyle suggested asking staff to bring in some ideas about how to adapt the Redline District in such a way that it addresses these points and maybe a checklist of what you get if you are in it and what you get if you are not in it, along with how can we change this. He thinks the City is doing the right thing on improvement of the street and on parking. The question is really about the actual ordinance that will maintain the premium shopping experience. Mr. Cowan said moving forward they will talk about different boundaries and discuss at least three tiers, and then go over permissible uses. Mr. Koseck said to investigate the uses that may not have existed when the 2016 Plan came about and whether the ordinance needs to be changed to accommodate them.

134 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2018 City Commission Room STUDY SESSION 1. Retail Discussion Mr. Cowan recalled that after approving a definition for personal services in relation to the definition of commercial uses in retail, the City Commission has asked the Planning Board to evaluate the Redline Retail boundaries and identify buildings that may be less suitable for retail. Over the past several months, the Planning Board reviewed the Redline Retail District of 3.25 linear miles, 278 businesses, went over the range of uses in the District, the distribution of asking rents, vacancy locations, images of building frontages, maps of storefronts' proximity to parking, supplementary market data and a macro scale retail market report. The board then requested maps proposing new boundaries of a Retail District, including multiple tiers with different requirements. Therefore,four different tiers of first-floor permissible uses, each with a color associated with it, have been created along with six different boundary revision suggestions. First-Floor Use Descriptions: 1. Redline Retail (Red): a. Retail Goods, Restaurants, Salon-Spa, Entertainment i. Primary location downtown. 2. Blueline Business(Blue): a. Retail Goods, Restaurants, Salon-Spa, Entertainment, Retail-Services i. Secondary locations that provide retail opportunities and businesses that are complimentary to the needs of residents and activate the streets downtown. 3. General Greenline (Green): a. Retail Goods, Restaurants, Salon-Spa, Entertainment, Retail-Services, Medical i. i. Tertiary locations that provide retail opportunities, businesses that are complimentary to the needs of residents and activate the streets downtown, and have buildings conducive to medical and dental practices that wish to locate near downtown. 4. Non-Conforming(Yellow): a. Retail Goods, Restaurants, Salon-Spa, Entertainment, Retail-Services, Medical, Office

135 i.buildings that have been deemed to be less suitable for retail on the first floor due toarchitectural features and/or dimensions. Properties within this boundary are exempt from first-floor use requirements, although they may be added into another first-floor use category as a condition of approval for new construction or redevelopment projects. Suggested New Boundaries of a Retail District: 1. No Change a. This would result in the conclusion that the Planning Board wishes to see true retail maintained in downtown Birmingham, and that there is sufficient demand for retail throughout the current Redline Retail boundary. 2. Remove Buildings not Suitable for Retail a. Maintains general size of the Redline Retail boundary while removing buildings deemed less suitable for retail. Locations are predominantly on N. Old Woodward Ave. and Brown. Properties within this boundary are exempt from first-floor use requirements, although they may be added into another first-floor use category as a condition of approval for new construction or redevelopment projects. 3. Downtown Core Based a. Focuses on the intersection of Old Woodward Ave. and Maple Rd. for retail goods, while permitting retail services on the outer edges of downtown and the complimentary streets. 4. Overlay Zoning Based a. Associates first-floor use with the overlay zoning categories and permissible height. b. Areas with greater height allowance have tighter first-floor retail requirements, while areas with lower height allowance have a broader range of first-floor uses. 5. Mixed Categories a. Option 5 combines consideration for buildings less suitable for retail, Overlay Zoning boundaries, the Parking Assessment District, and current uses. b. The General Greenline boundary has been included on N. Old Woodward Ave. due the current use and characteristics of the buildings more suitable for medical/dental. c. The east side of S. Old Woodward Ave. was kept as Redline Retail due to its D-4/D-5 Overlay Zoning classification, while the west side was incorporated into the Blueline Business because it is not in the Parking Assessment District and is zoned D-2 in the Overlay. 6. Mixed Categories a. Option 6 also combines consideration for buildings less suitable for retail, overlay zoning, the Parking Assessment District, and current uses. b. This option expands the General Greenline Boundary on N. Old Woodward Ave. in comparison to Option 5, and also includes this boundary on S.Old Woodward Ave.at the intersection of Lincoln.

136 With regard to options 5 and 6, Ms. Whipple-Boyce felt it is not a matter of waiting to see what a project is and then giving it a color, but it should be known already what that color should be. Mr. Share's reaction was they should think about three categories rather than four. Also, he didn't think there should be a distinction between medical office and office. He didn't see much difference between those categories in terms of how the first floor is used. Also, with the challenges that brick and mortar retail have, the footprint and the model are shrinking. Less floor inventory and ordering off of the internet seems to be the trend. In five or ten years it will be a challenge to keep the retail, not so much in the red area, but in the more outlying areas north and south on Old Woodward Ave. and on Hamilton. After discussion, there was concurrence that the board liked the idea of three tiers as opposed to the four. Mr. Share did not want to see green in the Parking Assessment District. From the corner of Lincoln and Old Woodward Ave. moving north to Landon, green for the whole strip. On the north end from Oak to Oakland there was concurrence for blue. Mr. Boyle thought they want to focus their pedestrian level in the core (red). In the other areas, encourage lots of different activities. Mr. Williams said the problem is that retail feeds off of retail and with a reduced amount of retail it becomes less attractive for retail. This is precisely why the board needs professional help. None of the board members are retailers. Chairman Clein responded that once this has been vetted by the Planning Board he thinks they are justified in going to the Commission and saying they would like professionals to review what they have done. Mr. Williams voiced his concern about the north end where there is retail that gets a lot of walkins. Services is a good idea, but will that hurt the other retail establishments that depend on multiple retailers. Further, If the board insists on retail in some areas maybe that is exactly the kind of thing where retail can be located in the front and additional uses to the rear to a greater extent than might be permitted in the core retail area. That may help landlords lease their space, but still retain the essential retail component. Ms. McElroy commented that retail stores and retail services both bring customers into the stores. Maybe having them in one area would mean going to one place and then discovering another store or service that is convenient. More people would be going to the area for different reasons. Mr. Williams said he does not patronize a service so he can do retail shopping as well. Mr. Boyle said that is exactly the type of question that a specialist could answer. If the board gets professional assistance they would want to do some kind of Q and A from the constituent retail and office space in town.

137 Mr. Share wondered if it makes sense to compel first-floor retail along the whole Redline Retail District. His sense as he walks around is that there is a lack of demand for so much retail. It seems to him the board wants to: Encourage retail and compel it in the core; Allow for more uses stretching out of the core; Come up with some ways to incentivize people in the stretch zones to use them for retail even though they are not compelled to; Keep the highly functional retail zone at the bottom of the hill on N. Old Woodward Ave. To summarize, look at the red where it is; look at blue all the way north at Oak; look at green in the last block in the south to see if that makes sense. If itdoes the board can start to address uses, what kind of incentives may be put in place, and solicit professional help to see if their assumptions have some basis in reality. Ms. Whipple-Boyce indicated she would have jumped in sooner with the professional help. The board may be doing a lot of work without knowing if they are going in the right direction. Also, they should look for some early buy-in from the building owners and retailers because they will want to be included. In that regard, Ms. Ecker noted that staff sent out a Blast to the Birmingham Shopping District this week to tell them the Planning Board will be discussing this tonight in case any of the retailers wanted to attend. Mr. Jeffares said that with any kind of project work the consultants are usually brought in at the beginning, not at the end. To him, the board could go through a lot of work and a lot of time and be totally on the wrong path. Mr. Williams suggested this matter be put back on the agenda for the Planning Board meeting on June 13 when the Planning Staff will come back with the concepts that have been delineated this evening. Also, that the board put the issue of professional assistance and the issue of input from the business and retail community on the agenda for the joint Planning Board/City Commission meeting on June 18. At that meeting indicate what the board needs going forward. Mr. Share advised that in general the building owners are going to say they want as many uses as they can get. Mr. Williams indicated he doesn't want to get too far down the road before the June 18 meeting. The board needs to make sure that the Commission believes they are headed in the right direction. Mr. Cowan clarified: They are merging medical/dental office into office; Non-Conforming use is being eliminated; Staff will pull together leasing rates into a map form.

138

139

140

141

142

143

144 5/9/2018 City of Birmingham MI Mail - Fwd: Do Parking Minimums Hurt Housing Affordability? Jana Ecker <jecker@bhamgov.org> Fwd: Do Parking Minimums Hurt Housing Affordability? 1 message Joe Valentine <jvalentine@bhamgov.org> Tue, May 8, 2018 at 4:24 PM To: "Andrew M. Harris" <aharris@bhamgov.org>, Carroll DeWeese <cdeweese@bhamgov.org>, Mark Nickita <mnickita@bhamgov.org>, Patty Bordman <pbordman@bhamgov.org>, Pierre Boutros <pboutros@bhamgov.org>, Racky Hoff <rackyhoff@hotmail.com>, Stuart Sherman <ssherman@bhamgov.org>, Tim Currier <tcurrier@bhlaw.us.com> Cc: Jana Ecker <Jecker@bhamgov.org>, Tiffany Gunter <tgunter@bhamgov.org> fyi Forwarded message From: Mark Nickita <mnickita@bhamgov.org> Date: Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:00 AM Subject: Do Parking Minimums Hurt Housing Affordability? To: Joe Valentine <jvalentine@bhamgov.org> FYI Joe Im sending this In response to the that was sent to the city regarding the need for more affordable housing in Bham and how raising the height limits will achieve that. This has also come up in public comments During The Ad hoc parking committee meetings. I have included just one of many available articles online that explain that the issue driving unit sizes and prices up is not height but parking requirements established by municipalities. We have seen this In Bham, where the main reason that we get very few and very large and expensive residential units in mixed use bldgs Downtown is because of the high parking requirement. Minimizing or dropping the requirement altogether would very likely increase the amount of smaller units at less cost to the user. This is common in cities across the country and the world. And lessening parking requirements for housing is an increasingly common revision to zoning. Raising heights and floor counts simply will not achieve more affordable housing I can pass along my experience from my other home in downtown Toronto. For years, new residential heights have been increasing in Toronto. Currently, it is Common to see new and proposed residential towers to be at 70, 80 and over 90 stories tall. And the current average condo sale price per sq foot in The region is over $700 and growing - and rents are rising accordingly. If increasing building heights made housing more affordable, then Toronto and NYC would be pretty cheap places to live. FYI Mark 1/4

145 5/9/2018 City of Birmingham MI Mail - Fwd: Do Parking Minimums Hurt Housing Affordability? Do Parking Minimums Hurt Housing Affordability? Some cities think they do, and are moving to change parking mandates to encourage more affordable apartments. Tod Newcombe Affordable housing is a big issue for many cities, especially top-tier urban areas like New York and Los Angeles, to name a few. And it's only grown worse in recent years as the gap between what people can afford and what they earn has increased. The National Low Income Housing Coalition says the average renter earns $14.38 an hour, but needs to earn $18.79 an hour to afford a decent apartment, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's fair market rent estimate. The coalition figures that another 4.5 million rental units are needed to satisfy the demand for affordable living. But getting even a fraction of that number of apartments built won't be easy. Want more urban news? Click here. The problem can be tied to a number of factors, including restrictive land-use regulations that can drive up land and construction costs. One often overlooked regulation is the parking mandate. Most cities require developers to set aside a parking space for every unit they build in an apartment building; in some cities, requirements call for a parking slot for every bedroom. Cities impose parking mandates to keep street parking to a minimum, essentially in order to leave spaces open for temporary parking. But setting aside the land for all that parking, or adding a garage beneath the building, can jack up the overall price of an apartment. These mandates, or parking minimums, have been dubbed a driving subsidy by some critics, who charge that they distort transportation choices in favor of automobiles and increase traffic congestion, air pollution and energy consumption. Harvard economist Edward Glaeser points out that cities have "kept street parking artificially cheap and then mandated more off-street spots, wasting scarce common space, encouraging automobile congestion and raising the cost of construction" for housing. Research by UCLA's Institute of Transportation Studies found that "when parking requirements are removed, developers provide more housing and less parking, and also that developers provide different types of housing: housing in older buildings, in previously disinvested areas, and housing marketed toward non-drivers. This latter category of housing tends to sell for less than housing with parking spaces." 2/4

146 5/9/2018 City of Birmingham MI Mail - Fwd: Do Parking Minimums Hurt Housing Affordability? The findings are getting noticed as urban populations rebound in some areas with new residents who don't want or need cars, relying instead on transit, bikes, car rentals and, of course, walking to get around. A small but growing number of cities are beginning to loosen parking regulations in hopes that developers can reduce the price of their rental units. Cambridge, Mass., has cut back on parking requirements and now its neighbor, Boston, is doing the same. Portland, Ore., was one of the first cities in the country to remove parking requirements, which has led to a spate of new development along transit lines. One of about 30 parking-free apartment buildings in Portland, Ore., that have been recently completed or are in some stage of development. (Photo: AP/Don Ryan) But just as more city bike lanes means fewer parking spaces and more unhappy drivers, doing away with apartment parking requirements can lead to some nasty squabbles in some jurisdictions. Residents of Boston neighborhoods are angry about the changes the city government has made regarding parking mandates, fearing a flood of cars on their side streets. Washington, D.C.'s planning director has reassured its neighborhood residents that minimum parking requirements will remain in effect in its transit-oriented neighborhoods (although the city still plans to remove the mandate for its downtown area). And even in Portland -- perhaps the nation's most progressive urban city -- has had to pull back on its grand plans to eliminate parking requirements. In April, the city council okayed minimum parking requirements for large apartment buildings. Neighborhood residents are relieved. Urbanists are aghast. For now, Portland's working class will have to wait a while longer before developers can build affordable rental apartments that don't subsidize parking. Mark Nickita, FAIA, CNU, APA City Commissioner City of Birmingham, MI Like me on Facebook Mark Nickita -- Joseph A. Valentine City Manager City of Birmingham 3/4

147 5/9/2018 City of Birmingham MI Mail - Fwd: Do Parking Minimums Hurt Housing Affordability? 151 Martin Street Birmingham, MI (248) Office Direct (248) Fax jvalentine@bhamgov.org To get the latest information regarding the City of Birmingham, please sign up for our communication tools by clicking here 4/4

148 6/1/2018 City of Birmingham MI Mail - Fwd: Detroit poised for retail boom Jana Ecker <jecker@bhamgov.org> Fwd: Detroit poised for retail boom 1 message Joe Valentine <jvalentine@bhamgov.org> Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:51 AM To: "Andrew M. Harris" <aharris@bhamgov.org>, Carroll DeWeese <cdeweese@bhamgov.org>, Mark Nickita <mnickita@bhamgov.org>, Patty Bordman <pbordman@bhamgov.org>, Pierre Boutros <pboutros@bhamgov.org>, Racky Hoff <rackyhoff@hotmail.com>, Stuart Sherman <ssherman@bhamgov.org>, Tim Currier <tcurrier@bhlaw.us.com> Cc: Jana Ecker <Jecker@bhamgov.org>, Tiffany Gunter <tgunter@bhamgov.org>, Ingrid Tighe <itighe@bhamgov.org> fyi Forwarded message From: Mark Nickita <mnickita@bhamgov.org> Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 5:54 AM Subject: Detroit poised for retail boom To: Joe Valentine <jvalentine@bhamgov.org> FYI Retail spaces that have been empty for many, many years in downtown detroit are filling up quickly. Increasing, the retail condition downtown is strengthening fast. In Addition to the many new retailers that have opened over the last couple of years, we may see nationals like Apple, H&M and Zara coming to Woodward avenue. Independent retailers, like our Pure Detroit stores, are also growing and opening in downtown. Downtown retail is continuing to strengthen across the county and beyond. My observations from the last few months of travel from Shanghai to Paris to Savannah to Toronto to Wausau, Wi (where I am today) show that street level retail uses are strong and growing. I am doing an urban design master plan and visioning project in downtown Wausau and I have been studying the city yesterday and again today. We have been meeting with the mayor, city council and Staff to gain insight into the state of downtown here. They tell us that their Downtown, which is quite impressive, is 97% occupied. I can pass along that the ground level uses are solidly retail, I have seen no office uses at street level, with some impressive stores, including a downtown grocery market and some great clothing stores. As malls are dying across the country, including here in Downtown Wausau, urban, Walkable districts, and their street level retailers, continue to gain ground Mark Finley, Jacques: Detroit poised for retail boom 1/4