October 22, 2014 - City of Birmingham

Transcription

REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD
WEDNESDAY – OCTOBER 22, 2014
7:30 PM
CITY COMMISSION ROOM
151 MARTIN STREET, BIRMINGHAM
A.
B.
C.
D.
Roll Call
Review and Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting of October 8, 2014
Chairpersons’ Comments
Review of the Agenda
E. Courtesy Review
1. South Hamilton Alley Improvement
F. Special Land Use Permit
1. 2200 Holland Street, Mercedes-Benz of Bloomfield Hills Prep and
Storage Facility – New construction of one story building 16,400 sq.ft. in
size for the cleaning, detailing, light repair and storage of vehicles.
(Postponed from September 10, 2014 – Request by applicant to
postpone to October 22, 2014)
2. 820 E. Maple – All Seasons Senior Living – Request for Economic
Development License.
G. Final Site Plan Review
1. 820 E. Maple – All Seasons Senior Living – Request for Economic
Development License
H. Preliminary Site Plan Review
1. 2200 Holland Street, Mercedes-Benz of Bloomfield Hills Prep and
Storage Facility – New construction of one story building 16,400 sq.ft. in
size for the cleaning, detailing, light repair and storage of vehicles.
(Postponed from September 10, 2014 – Request by applicant to
postpone to October 22, 2014)
I. Meeting Open to the Public for items not on the Agenda
J. Miscellaneous Business and Communications:
a. Communications – Joint Meeting October 20, 2014
b. Administrative Approval Correspondence
Notice: Due to Building Security, public entrance during non-business hours is through the Police Department—Pierce
St. Entrance only. Individuals with disabilities requiring assistance to enter the building should request aid via the intercom system
at the parking lot entrance gate on Henrietta St.
Persons with disabilities that may require assistance for effective participation in this public meeting should contact the City Clerk’s
Office at the number (248) 530-1880, or (248) 644-5115 (for the hearing impaired) at least one day before the meeting to request
help in mobility, visual, hearing, or other assistance.
Las personas con incapacidad que requieren algún tipo de ayuda para la participación en esta sesión pública deben ponerse en
contacto con la oficina del escribano de la ciudad en el número (248) 530-1800 o al (248) 644-5115 (para las personas con
incapacidad auditiva) por lo menos un dia antes de la reunión para solicitar ayuda a la movilidad, visual, auditiva, o de otras
asistencias. (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
c. Draft Agenda for the next Regular Planning Board Meeting (November 12,
2014)
d. Other Business
K. Planning Division Action Items
a. Staff Report on Previous Requests
b. Additional Items from tonight's meeting
L. Adjournment
PAGE 2 OF 2
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
PLANNING BOARD ACTION ITEMS
OF WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
Item
Page
SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT ("SLUP")
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW
2200 Holland St.
Mercedes-Benz of Bloomfield Hills Prep and Storage Facility
New construction of a one-story building 16,400 sq. ft. in size for the
cleaning, detailing, light repair and storage of vehicles (postponed from
September 10, 2014; request by applicant to further postpone to October 22,
2014).
2
Motion by Ms. Whipple-Boyce
Seconded by Ms. Lazar to postpone Special Land Use Permit and
Preliminary Site Plan review for 2200 Holland St. to the Planning Board
meeting of October 22.
2
Motion carried, 5-0.
2
COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDY ("CIS")
2400 and 2430 E. Lincoln
The District East Live/Work Apartments
New construction of a four-story mixed-use live/work building with
parking
2
Motion by Mr. DeWeese
Seconded by Ms. Whipple-Boyce to accept the Community Impact Study
as provided by the applicant for the proposed development at 2400 and
2430 E. Lincoln, subject to the following conditions:
1) Applicant combine the two lots prior to obtaining a building permit;
2) Applicant provide accommodation for the recommended linear park for
bicyclists and pedestrians, including a southern terminus;
3) Applicant address all required environmental cleanup to meet
residential Generic Cleanup Criteria;
4) Applicant provide details regarding the proposed separation and
collection of recycled materials on site;
5) Applicant install 8 in. water main to service site, and provide the City
with a 12 ft. easement for same;
6) Applicant provide all on-site storm water detention details and address
all easement issues on site;
4
1
Birmingham Planning Board Proceedings
October 8, 2014
Item
Page
7) Applicant provide irrigation for all landscaped areas, including street
tree wells; and
8) Applicant provide a Knox box and meet all NFPA requirements.
4
Seconded by Ms. Whipple-Boyce to postpone the Preliminary Site Plan
for 2400 and 2430 E. Lincoln to December 10, 2014.
7
8
2
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
City Commission Room
151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan
Minutes of the regular meeting of the City of Birmingham Planning Board held October
8, 2014. Chairman Scott Clein convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Present:
Chairman Scott Clein; Board Members Carroll DeWeese,
Bert Koseck, Gillian Lazar, Janelle Whipple-Boyce, Bryan Williams (left at
7:35 p.m.); Student Representative Jack Moore (left at 9:45 p.m.)
Absent:
Robin Boyle, Student Representative Shelby Wilson
Administration:
Matthew Baka, Senior Planner
Jana Ecker, Planning Director
Carole Salutes, Recording Secretary
10-148-14
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING
HELD SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
Seconded by Ms. Lazar to approve the Minutes of the regular Planning Board
meeting on September 24, 2014 as presented.
VOICE VOTE
Yeas: DeWeese, Lazar, Clein, Koseck, Williams
Nays: None
Abstain: Whipple-Boyce
Absent: None
10-149-14
CHAIRPERSON’S COMMENTS
Chairman Clein noted this will be a hybrid meeting where the board will hear site plan
reviews as well as conduct a study session.
1
10-150-14
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The applicant has requested postponement of the review for 2200 Holland St. to
October 22.
10-151-14
2200 Holland St.
New construction of a one-story building 16,400 sq. ft. in size for the cleaning,
detailing, light repair and storage of vehicles
Postponed from September 10, 2014; request by applicant to further postpone to
October 22, 2014.
Motion by Ms. Whipple-Boyce
Seconded by Ms. Lazar to postpone Special Land Use Permit and Preliminary Site
Plan review for 2200 Holland St. to the Planning Board meeting of October 22.
VOICE VOTE
Yeas: Whipple-Boyce, Lazar, Clein, Koseck, Lazar, Williams
Nays: None
Absent: None
10-152-14
COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDY ("CIS")
2400 and 2430 E. Lincoln
The District East Live/Work Apartments
New construction of a four-story mixed-use live/work building with parking
Mr. Williams explained his law firm, Dickinson Wright, represents the owner of the
property subject to the proposed development. Because of that relationship, he
announced his intension to recuse himself.
Ms. Ecker advised the subject sites are currently two parcels. The applicant has advised
that they intend to combine both parcels into one parcel. The lot combination is required
to meet the density requirements. The parcels are vacant and a new mixed-use
(live/work units) four-story development is proposed. The combined site has a total land
area of 3.78 acres and is located on the south side of E. Lincoln east of Eton. Currently
the applicant is looking to phase the development. The first phase that will be
discussed tonight is on the northern portion of the two parcels.
2
The proposed development will consist of a new structure, four stories in height with 71
garage parking spaces and an additional 69 uncovered spaces located at the rear and
to the east of the building. The first floor will be for covered parking, and there will be a
total of 63 live/work units on floors 2, 3, and 4. They are comprised of 27 one-bedroom
units, 30 two-bedroom units, and 6 three-bedroom units. The total building area is
89,289 GSF. Thus, the applicant was required to prepare a CIS in accordance with
Article 7, section 7.27 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance as they are proposing one new
building containing more than 20,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area.
CIS
Ms. Ecker stated the proposed use of the site appears to conform to the provisions of
both the Zoning Ordinance and the Eton Rd. Corridor Plan. The applicant submitted a
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment that was conducted using EPA Brownfield
Assessment Grant Funds, in order to identify recognized environmental conditions. The
site is mainly cleaned up with only a few little pocket areas of contamination below the
parking area that can be capped over.
The building official has verbally indicated that it appears parking will not be permitted
within the first 10 ft. from the E. Lincoln building facade back. It seems the applicant will
either have to appeal the interpretation to the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or apply
for a variance to allow the parking there.
Mr. Koseck said he is missing how this building fits in relationship to its neighboring
buildings, sidewalks, and roads.
Mr. Sean Havera, Sr. Project Manager with Hughes Properties, was present with Mr.
Ronald Hughes, one of the principals of the development team, and Mr. Thom Phillips
of Hobbs & Black Architects. Commenting on the CIS, Mr. Havera talked about how the
City's plan to develop a linear park could be accomplished. In regards to the
environmental report, contaminants can be addressed by capping them to take away
their exposure level so they don't need to be physically removed from the site. In
landscape areas where there is contamination, a geotextile fabric would be put down
and 6 in. of topsoil added on top of that.
Recycling will be accomplished within the building.
Mr. Havera advised that they have shown the construction of the new public road as
part of this project and will work with the City with respect to when it is constructed and
how it is paid for. When future developments are done, additional fire hydrants will be
added to provide appropriate coverage. Plans for storm water detention will be
presented at Final Site Plan Review. They plan to work with the City to abandon an 18
in. storm sewer drain appropriately. It is felt they have sufficient circulation throughout
the site, but they intend to consult with the Fire Dept. to ensure that fire trucks are
accommodated.
The chairman offered his opinion that the responsibility for the N/S road is not within this
board's purview. He received clarification from Mr. Havera that their proposal will result
in one tax ID parcel which will be master deeded in phases. It was noted the parking
3
requirement for this building is 72 spaces for the 63 condos and 140 parking spaces are
provided. Mr. Havera explained each unit will have at least two spaces along with the
necessary guest parking.
Chairman Clein opened discussion to the public at 8:15 p.m.
Mr. Mark Shwayder of the Shwayder Co. across the street was concerned about the
additional traffic on that block. Ms. Ecker responded a traffic study was completed by
the City's traffic consultant that showed the project would have very little impact on the
level of service along E. Lincoln.
Seconded by Ms. Whipple-Boyce to accept the Community Impact Study as
provided by the applicant for the proposed development at 2400 and 2430 E.
Lincoln, subject to the following conditions:
3) Applicant address all required environmental cleanup to meet residential
Generic Cleanup Criteria;
4) Applicant provide details regarding the proposed separation and collection of
recycled materials on site;
5) Applicant install 8 in. water main to service site, and provide the City with a 12
ft. easement for same;
6) Applicant provide all on-site storm water detention details and address all
easement issues on site;
7) Applicant provide irrigation for all landscaped areas, including street tree
wells; and
8) Applicant provide a Knox box and meet all NFPA requirements.
There were no comments on the motion from the public at 8:22 p.m.
VOICE VOTE
Yeas: DeWeese, Whipple-Boyce, Clein, Koseck, Lazar
Nays: None
Abstain: Williams
Absent: None
Preliminary Site Plan
Ms. Ecker reviewed the landscape requirements and advised that Article 04 section 417 of the Zoning Ordinance requires at least one street tree for each 40 linear feet of
frontage. The applicant will be required to add one additional street tree along the
new N/S roadway or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA").
Article 4 Section 4.20 LA-01 (E) requires one deciduous tree and one evergreen tree for
every two residential units. As the applicant is proposing a total of 63 units, a total of 32
deciduous and 32 evergreen trees is required on site. The applicant is proposing a total
4
of 45 deciduous trees and no evergreen trees. The applicant will be required to add
the required evergreen trees or obtain a variance from the BZA.
Article 4, section 4.48 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that off-street parking contained
in the first story shall not be permitted within 10 ft. of any building facade on a frontage
line or between the building facade and the frontage line. The applicant is proposing
parking to be contained within the first story of the building within 10 ft. of the front
building facade and approximately 5 ft. off the lot's frontage line. The applicant will be
required to shift the first floor parking back 10 ft. from the front building facade or
obtain a variance from the BZA. The applicant has filed a request for an
interpretation from the building official on this issue.
Mr. DeWeese wanted to know prior to Final Site Plan Review whether parallel parking
will be allowed on both sides of that section of E. Lincoln.
Design Review
At this time the applicant is proposing to utilize the following materials for the new
live/work building:
 Split face load bearing masonry block on the first level;
 Burnished block veneer in two colors on the upper levels;
 Cement board accent panels on upper floors;
 Metal coping around the eave line/parapet wall;
 Aluminum windows with a tint;
 Painted metal canopies at the entrance on E. Lincoln; and
 Ornamental metal rails on the balconies.
Detailed discussion regarding architectural standards and design related issues will take
place at Final Site Plan and Design Review.
Mr. Koseck initiated conversation regarding eliminating the leftover hammerhead in the
City right-of-way to the north. Mr. Havera said they cannot accommodate the timing to
go through that process. They will just honor what was previously negotiated.
Mr. Havera stated they intend to proceed to the BZA for an overruling of the building
official's interpretation regarding their first-floor parking, or request variances to allow
the parking. They are in favor of parallel parking being allowed on E. Lincoln, but need
a response from the Engineering Dept. because it affects their streetscape. Green
space could replace some of their parking that is accommodated on the street. Mr.
Koseck encouraged him to take a hard look at extending their sidewalk out to the curb
at the entrance. Chairman Clein suggested they widen the sidewalk in front of the
building.
Mr. DeWeese indicated it would be hard for him to approve this Preliminary Site Plan
until he receives an interpretation about the first floor parking from the building official.
Mr. Phillips noted they don't see the parking as a tremendous obstacle and certainly can
come up with a viable solution to address it.
Chairman Clein asked the applicants if it is their intention to do storm water detention
below grade or to come back at Final Site Plan Review with a detention pond. That
5
impacts the site plan and design and he needs to see it tonight. Mr. Havera said they
plan an open pond. Mr. Phillips added it wouldn't substantially impact the site plan, as it
borders the railroad track and the cemetery.
Chairman Clein referred to the public for comment at 9:20 p.m.
Mr. Mark Shwayder told the board that during the summer there are many occasions
when baseball games and swim meets are going on at the same time. The surrounding
area is packed with cars and that is something the board should think about.
Ms. Whipple-Boyce said she will vote to postpone a decision until the board has a better
understanding of what will be on the first floor. She doesn't like the cars on the first floor
and the lack of pedestrian relationship that comes with walking 300 ft along a row of
parked cars. She thinks the intent of the ordinance was to avoid that from happening.
She noted several requirements from the Eton Rd. Corridor Plan that are not being met
with the proposed plan. She wants to see something that is more compliant with what
the board is hoping to see in this area.
Ms. Lazar noted the site is a destination as opposed to something people will walk by to
get elsewhere. Chairman Clein agreed. Mr. Koseck commented if there is any place
that this would be okay it is on this site because it is a dead-end. However, that might
set a precedent. For the next submission of this plan he would want to see a plaza in
the front of the building and see that trees are not placed without any relationship to the
front entrance. The board is spending a lot of time on something that may not be
achievable.
Motion by Mr. Koseck
Seconded by Ms. Lazar to approve the Preliminary Site Plan for 2400 and 2430 E.
Lincoln subject to the following conditions:
2) Planning Board approves the adjustment of the front setback to 5 ft.
3) Applicant shift the first floor parking back 10 ft. from the front façade of the
building or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals or obtain a
favorable interpretation from the Building Official;
4) Applicant provide the height of the knee walls on the north and west
elevation to demonstrate that the knee wall is at least 32 in. in height;
5) Applicant provide specification sheets on all proposed mechanical equipment
and lighting and a photometric plan for Final Site Plan and Design Review;
6) Applicant provide a detailed landscape plan to demonstrate compliance
with all landscape requirements, including providing the required evergreen trees
or obtain any required variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals;
8) Applicant install 8 in. water main to service site, and provide the City with a
12 ft. easement for same;
9) Applicant provide all on site storm water detention details and address all
easement issues on site;
10) Applicant provide irrigation for all landscaped areas, including street tree
wells;
6
11) Applicant provide a Knox box and meet all NFPA requirements;
12) Subsequent site plans shall show neighboring buildings, sidewalks, and other
adjacent components to help the Planning Board understand how this integrates
with neighboring sites;
13) Storm water detention shall be shown in some detail to adequately
understand how it impacts the design of the site;
14) Applicant shall make modifications to the north front entry, including the
addition of a hardscape plaza and make adjustments to street lighting and street
trees accordingly; and
15) Applicant present Interpretation of whether street parking is allowable; and if
so, show on the plan its placement and how it relates to the site and neighboring
properties.
There were no comments from the public at 9:37 p.m.
Motion failed, 3-2.
ROLLCALL VOTE
Yeas: Koseck, Lazar, Clein,
Nays: DeWeese, Whipple-Boyce
Abstain: Williams
Absent: None
Seconded by Ms. Whipple-Boyce to postpone the Preliminary Site Plan for 2400
and 2430 E. Lincoln to December 10, 2014.
No one from the public wished to discuss the motion at 9:39 p.m.
It was noted that possibly the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Reviews could be
conducted simultaneously on December 10.
Ms. Whipple-Boyce announced she is not comfortable moving this plan forward
because she is uncomfortable with the E. Lincoln facade. Chairman Clein said he
personally is concerned about this board taking stances related to BZA purview issues.
Therefore he will not support the motion because he feels it is not being postponed for
the right reason. Mr. DeWeese observed the interpretation that is yet to be made
directly affects the basic structure and use of the entire building and how it is laid out.
ROLLCALL VOTE
Yeas: DeWeese, Whipple-Boyce, Koseck, Lazar
Nays: Clein
Abstain: Williams
Absent: None
10-153-14
7
STUDY SESSION
Transitional Zoning Update
Chairman Clein advised it was brought to the attention of the City Commission and the
city attorney that there were concerns over the nature of noticing related to an overlay
versus a strict rezoning. That is why the City Commission has asked the Planning
Board to take a look and determine the next steps.
Mr. Baka explained the key with an overlay is that it is optional. A rezoning is not
optional. The draft ordinance language was reviewed and the Applicability section was
modified to make it optional, so it is a true overlay. It was brought out that now there is
not much incentive for a developer to choose the overlay because the perks aren't so
good.
Ms. Whipple-Boyce hoped this document would be mandatory rather than optional.
Chairman Clein suggested if they start out optional the board might want to consider
going through the parcels to see if they have the right perks from that perspective.
Consensus was that single-family residential can always be done, no matter the zoning.
Ms. Ecker said the document will be reformatted and brought back to the Planning
Board in a month; then the board will look at it and eventually set a public hearing.
Following that there will be another public hearing at the City Commission. Board
members agreed to make Transitional Zoning mandatory.
10-154-14
MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (no audience
was present)
10-155-14
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a.
Communications (none)
b.
Administrative Approvals
 442 S. Old Woodward Ave., Hall & Hunter Realtors - New windows. Profiles and
color to match existing.
 633 S. Adams, Orange Theory Fitness - Request approval for additional rooftop
unit screen to be located at rear of building. Screen to be City Scape Envisor 35
vertical style. Color to match existing.
 34750 Woodward Ave., Speedway - Remove and replace gasoline dispensing in
same location; Concrete and asphalt work as required for modified piping and
tank top work.
 2425 E. Lincoln, Suite 100 - The sign design changed per drawing.
8
c.
Draft Agenda for the Regular Planning Board Meeting on October 22, 2014
 2200 Holland - SLUP and Preliminary Site Plan Review
 820 E. Maple, All Seasons Senior Living - Economic Development License
 S. Hamilton Alley repaving - Courtesy review for public property
d.
Other Business
 The deadline was October 1 and three bistro applications were received. A
fourth application came in the day after the deadline and will not be considered.
10-156-14
PLANNING DIVISION ACTION ITEMS
a.
Staff report on previous requests (none)
b.
Additional items from tonight’s meeting (none)
10-157-14
ADJOURNMENT
No further business being evident, board members motioned to adjourn at 10:20 p.m.
Jana Ecker
Planning Director
9
MEMORANDUM
Engineering Dept.
DATE:
October 17, 2014
TO:
Planning Board
FROM:
Paul T. O’Meara, City Engineer
SUBJECT:
S. Hamilton Alley Paving Project
Hamilton Ave. to Park St.
Conceptual Plans
The following is a dateline that helps summarize the history of this project so far, and where we
hope to progress to in the near future:
HAMILTON ALLEY TIMELINE
1929 :
1929 – Present:
2003:
2005:
2012:
April, 2014:
June, 2014:
Aug., 2014:
Our records show that the combined sewer and first concrete pavement
were installed.
Similar to other alleys, City maintenance of the concrete has been
minimal. Complete alley pavement replacements are generally not
scheduled by City staff because they are subject to 100% special
assessment to the adjacent owners.
As the Willits Building is being finished, the owner finances and constructs
alleys along the rear and side of the building that set a new, higher
standard for alleys with improved pavement, street lights, green spaces,
etc.
To complement the effort done by the Willits Building, the City creates a
special assessment district to replace the pavement on the alley that is
located west of N. Old Woodward Ave., from the Willits Building to W.
Maple Rd. It becomes known as the “Willits Alley.”
The City Commission passes an ordinance designating certain alleys in
the City to be subject to new standards to encourage better pedestrian
utilization, usage, and maintenance, both by the City and the adjacent
owners.
During the fiscal 2014-15 budget hearing, the City Commission requests
that staff study the feasibility of replacing the pavement on the S.
Hamilton Alley, and to return with a report to consider including this as a
project in the 2014-15 budget year.
The Engineering Dept. estimates the cost of pavement replacement,
using the design used on the Willits Alley as a model. The Commission
endorses the department moving to the next step.
The attached informational booklet is prepared and mailed to all property
owners with frontage on this alley. The booklet describes the envisioned
project, the funding mechanism, and the construction process.
1
Sept. 11, 2014:
Sept. 22, 2014:
Oct. 2, 2014:
The Engineering Dept. hosts an informal meeting to encourage property
owners to come and discuss the project further. Six building owners
attend. Generally, they tend to agree that it is time for a project.
However, they tend to be concerned about the difficulty of the
construction process, handling deliveries and trash during construction,
and the desire to simplify the pavement design, noting that the daily use
of this alley will always subject it to uses contrary to the upgraded image
the City is trying to pursue (heavy trucks, dumpsters, waste grease
storage, etc.).
The City Commission held a public hearing to consider approving a paving
project. Several of the property owners that attended the above meeting
appeared at the hearing with the same concerns. It was noted that the
new alley ordinance requires that the conceptual design of any project,
including City projects, shall be reviewed by the Planning Board. The
general theme of the discussion was that the Commission thought that
this alley did not have to match the design theme used in the Willits
Alley. They also took the input from the adjacent owners and asked that
the amount of exposed aggregate should be reduced to help keep
maintenance simpler and construction costs down. There was also a
request for input from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).
Staff discussed the project with the ARC. All three members were
present, and offered several suggestions. Based on the discussion with
the City Commission, staff suggested a simpler joint pattern that involved
larger sections of concrete, less joints, and centrally located exposed
aggregate panels. The draft minutes of this meeting are attached.
Based on the discussion, City staff then hired Krieger Klatt Architects to prepare these
conceptual drawings. Krieger Klatt was one of the architects hired by the Planning Dept. to
help prepare conceptual drawings for several of the City’s alleys. Based on the discussions held
to date, staff directed the architect to prepare drawings based on the following considerations:
•
•
•
•
The concrete jointing pattern shall have larger panels with a de-emphasis on exposed
aggregate. Larger panels and less joints will result in better longevity. Reducing
exposed aggregate will reduce the construction cost, and discourage the placement of
dumpsters and waste grease containers being placed or spilled on its more porous
surface.
Special design emphasis was encouraged in the area where the two north/south City
walkways intersect the alley, to help encourage pedestrians to find their way through, as
well as at the point where the alley has a 90° bend. This is the one area where the
alley increases beyond its normal 18 ft. width, which allows for some creativity.
The joint pattern needs to follow standard engineering practices to ensure longevity,
including the avoidance of strange shapes, sharp angles, and joints intersecting into a
three way point.
“Via” signs following the conceptual drawings prepared by Ron Rea will be partially
implemented with this project. Having to bring electricity into the sign creates
difficulties and increases costs, so the “V” signs will be mounted to existing or proposed
street lights, as shown. Some street lights (south of the alley) are already placed in a
good position for this concept, while others can be strategically placed for additional
2
•
signs by 2016. (The City plans a new pavement and streetscape for Hamilton Ave. in
2016. At that time, street lights can be relocated on the Hamilton Ave. sidewalk, as well
as the walkway running from Hamilton Ave. to this alley.)
There is a vision to install a community trash compactor that would service the entire
corridor. However, there are only a few potential locations for such a facility, and none
of them are on public property. There are also questions about how such a facility
would be financed and maintained. Discussions have been started with some owners,
but in the event these do not materialize to something meaningful, the City should work
to enhance the three main areas where dumpsters are currently placed on or near the
alley. Metal screens can be installed adjacent to the dumpsters to help block the view of
them, as shown on these drawings.
With the above parameters, the staff is ready to present the attached drawings. The future
timing we hope to implement for this project is as follows:
Oct. 22, 2014:
Nov. 10, 2014:
Dec. 2, 2014:
Dec. 15, 2014:
March, 2015:
Sept.-Oct., 2015:
Plan review and endorsement by the Planning Board.
Review of the plan by the City Commission, and the setting of a new
public hearing.
Public hearing before the City Commission, and project authorization.
Public hearing before the City Commission, confirming the assessment
roll.
Finalize construction plans, and take bids from contractors.
Construction.
A suggested recommendation is provided below:
SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATION:
To endorse the S. Hamilton Alley Paving Project conceptual plans as prepared by Krieger Klatt
Architects, and to recommend that the City Commission authorize the project as shown.
3
Via Activation Overlay District
(Need amendments to Sign Ordinance as well)
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE BIRMINGHAM CITY CODE
TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, TO ADD SECTIONS 3.13 – 3.16 (VIA
ACTIVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT) TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE ALLEYS AND PASSAGES IN THE CITY.
THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:
3.13 Purpose
The purpose of the Via Activation Overlay District is to:
A. Recognize the role and character of vias in creating a fine grain urban
realm and improving walkability;
B. Encourage and direct development within the boundaries of the Via
Activation Overlay District and implement the Activating Urban Space: A
Strategy for Alleys & Passages;
C. Encourage a form of development in vias that will achieve the physical
qualities necessary to enhance, activate and re-imagine unique urban
spaces in Birmingham;
D. Encourage the improvement of building facades adjoining vias and ensure
the use of pedestrian scaled architectural details; and
E. Encourage first floor building uses to extend into and engage users of vias.
3.14 Applicability
A.
The Via Activation Overlay District shall be an overlay district that applies
to all existing and future vias in all zoning districts within the areas
identified below:
Legend
Via Activation Overlay District Map
Parking Structures
Central Business District
FLOYD
D
COMMERCE
E
LD
BL
IE
TA
FF
S
E
N
SH
DU
MELTON
BRADFORD
FOURTEENMILE
T
PURITAN
SUFFIELD
FAIRFAX
SHIRL EY
LATHAM
EMMONS
AT
TA
R
LYONHURST
GLENHURST
WESTWOOD
BROOKWOOD
CHESTERFIELD
PILGRIM
ARLINGTON
ETON
BAN BURY
CHAPIN
CROF
DAVIS
SMITH
BIRD
IS
LEW
EMMONS
RUFFN ER
HUMPHREY
TAUNTON
PIERCE
GRANT
EDGEWOOD
CEDAR
HENRIETTA
BEN NAVILLE
CHAPIN
HOL LAND
COL E
LINCOLN
COOLIDGE
ETON
TORRY
TH
WOR
ADAMS
HAYNES
WEBSTER
RUFFNER
HUMPHREY
SOUTHLAWN
MAPLE
BOWERS BOWERS
N
BUCKINGHAM
YORKSHIRE
HAZEL
ELM
N
AN
DY
O
ND
LA
WINDEMERE
DORC HESTER
COLUMBIA
VILLA
BOWERS
MANC HESTER
CAMBRIDGE
RUGBY
WORTH
YOSEMITE
HAZEL
RD
K
AN
GEORGE
BATES
STANLEY
WASHINGTON
WAKEFIELD
BUCKINGHAM
KNOX
R
PU
CHESTER
SOUTHLAWN
MARYL AND
SHIPMAN
LK
WESTBORO
RIDGEDALE
FR
RBURY
BIRMINGHAM
RF O
NO
MADISON
A
RD
WA
DW
OD
WO
OO
Y
OD
DW
AB
OL
PE
BROWN
WALLACE
SOUTHFIELD
N
NORTHLAW
N
RIVENOAK
FOREST
MERR ILL
TOWNSEND
HANNA
H
OXFORD
RK
E
PA
AL
ND
L
MAPLEHIL
LINDEN
GORD
O
PEMBROKE
KEN NESAW
OAKLAND
R
FE
ATEN
BAL DWIN
MARTIN
DERBY
MOHEGAN
N
HAMILTO
WILLITS
FRANK
CANTE
FAIRWAY
ON
DEWEY
ASPEN
E
SHEPAR DBUS
D
LAKEVIEW
VINEWOOD
SHIRLEY
CRANBROOK
BR
YN
MA
WE
WR
LLE
SLE
Y
BER
WY
N
AR
GY
LE
AR
DW
LAKESIDE
HENLEY
HARM
TOTTENHAM
ABBEY
LAKEPARK
PINE
DONMAR
PO
LO
HIL
LSI
D
O
WO
Parks
RAYN ALE
OAK
T
PLEASAN
A
LARCH LE
STER
WESTCHE
ST
GLENHUR
ARDEN
W
GOLFVIE
FOURTEENMILE
Rail District
WIMBLETON
AVON
MIDVALE
WILLOW
REDDIN G
KEN WOOD
PINE
LAKESIDE
QUARTON
Ü
Triangle District
BIGBEAVER
SAXON
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM AUGUST 2012
B. Use and development of land within the Via Activation Overlay District shall be
regulated as follows:
1. Any existing use shall be permitted to continue and the use shall be
subject to the underlying zoning requirements and not the Via Activation
Overlay District.
2. Where an existing use within a building is proposed to be expanded by
more than 50% of its size, the use shall be subject to the building use
standards of the Via Activation Overlay District to the maximum extent
practical, as determined by the Planning Board.
3. Any expansion to an existing building that expands the area of the building
by more than 40% of the existing building area shall subject the entire
building to the requirements of the Via Activation Overlay District and shall
be brought into compliance with the requirements of the Via Activation
Overlay District to the maximum extent practical, as determined by the
Planning Board.
4. Where a new building is proposed, the use and site shall be subject to the
requirements of the Via Activation Overlay District.
C. Development applications within the Via Activation Overlay District shall be
required to follow the Site Plan Review and Design Review standards contained
in Article 7.
D. Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages has been adopted
that divides Birmingham’s alleys and passages into distinct classifications. Each
classification designated in the Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys &
Passages, prescribes requirements for building form, design and use as follows:
Active Via: An alley with a mix of uses and activities - used by
pedestrians/bicyclists for travel, some commercial activities, pausing for
respite, outdoor dining etc. with shared use by service vehicles (deliveries,
trash removal etc.).
Connecting Via: A passage that provides a through-block connection for
pedestrians and/or bicyclists only.
Destination Via: Alleys or passages that people are drawn to as a
destination for participating in cultural activities, commercial activities,
recreational activities, special events, and other activities.
Alley and passage classifications for Birmingham’s existing network within the
Via Activation Overlay District are identified as follows:
Classifications for
Alleys & Passages
LEGEND
Active
Connecting
Destination
Parking Structures
Parks
Potential Crosswalks
Potential Vistas
E. While not required, any improvements to vias or uses for vias that are
permitted in the Via Activation Overlay District regulations are also permitted in
existing or future vias located throughout the City in all zoning districts, with
approval of the Planning Board.
3.15 General Standards
A. The design of buildings and sites adjacent to vias shall be regulated by the
provisions of the Via Activation Overlay District.
B. Section 3.13 to Section 3.16 shall govern the design of all privately owned land
within the Via Activation Overlay District.
C. The provisions of the Via Activation Overlay District, when in conflict with
other articles of the Zoning Ordinance, shall take precedence.
D. The provisions of the Via Activation Overlay District shall specifically
supersede all standards for the underlying zone district with regards to signage,
landscaping, side and rear setbacks, design and use for all portions of buildings
and sites directly adjoining a via.
E. The provisions of the building and building regulations Chapter 22 of the
Birmingham City Code and the historic preservation regulations in Chapter 62 of
the Birmingham City Code, when in conflict with the Via Activation Overlay
District, shall take precedence.
F. The design of community buildings and public improvements within the Via
Activation Overlay District shall not be subject to the specific standards of this
article, but shall be subject to review by the Planning Board.
3.16
Specific Standards
A. Permitted and prohibited uses. To enhance the amenity and character of vias,
to enhance visual interest and encourage surveillance of urban spaces, active
uses should be provided at the ground floor level along the majority of the edges
of buildings located adjacent to vias. While buildings should accommodate these
uses, care must be taken to avoid conflict with pedestrian movement in the via.
To specifically encourage the activation of vias, the following uses are permitted
within Active, Connecting, and Destination Vias:
a. Retail sales and display;
b. Public plazas and informal gathering spaces;
c. Art display; and
d. Community Gardens.
In addition, the following uses are also permitted within Connecting and
Destination Vias:
a. Outdoor dining; and
b. Special Events.
The following are specifically prohibited in all vias:
a. Automatic food and drink vending machines outdoors;
b. Drive-in facilities or any commercial use that encourages patrons to
remain in their automobiles while receiving goods or services;
c. Unscreened trash receptacles; and
d. Unscreened outdoor storage.
B. Parking requirements. To encourage active use of vias, the following parking
standards apply in vias:
a. Additional parking spaces shall not be required for the square footage
of any via used for any of the permitted uses listed in section A above
that extend from inside buildings into a via.
b. Openings for parking garage access from vias shall repeat the same
rhythm and proportion as the rest of the building to maintain a
consistent look on all facades facing a via.
C. Side and rear setbacks. Buildings and their elements shall be placed on lots
as follows:
a. Side setbacks shall not be required where side lot lines adjoin a via;
b. A minimum 10 foot rear yard setback must be provided from the
midpoint of the via, except that the Planning Board may allow this
setback to be reduced or eliminated; and
c. Awnings and/or canopies are encouraged to project into a via, but must
provide at least 8 feet of clearance above the via, and may not encroach
the clear zone for service vehicles.
D. Multi-Modal Access. To encourage broad use and multi-modal, 24 hour access
to vias as corridors for local travel and social interaction, while providing safe
travel for all users, the following standards apply:
a. To maintain access for service vehicles, a 10’ wide clear zone
(extending 22’ in height), must be maintained for all Active Vias;
b. In Active vias, signs must be posted indicating:
i)
Entire via is a shared access corridor;
ii)
Maximum speed for motor vehicles is 5 mph (walking
pace);
c. In all vias, the use of vehicle parking gates, fencing and other similar
barriers to access are prohibited; and
d. The addition of crosswalks is encouraged where vias intersect
streets, particularly in locations with another via entry on the other
side of the street.
E. Viascape Standards. To enhance the appearance of vias without stifling
creative design, the following standards apply:
a. For publicly owned vias:
ii) Broom finish concrete with exposed aggregate paving accents
must be used for visual interest in all vias;
i) All furniture and finishes used are required to match the
streetscape requirements of the district in which the via is
located, except if located within an area leased for private use;
and
ii) Furniture placement should consider available space, potential
for use and proximity to activity centers;
b. For privately owned vias:
ii) Paving materials and furniture may be selected to suit adjacent
private development, subject to approval by the appropriate
board or commission; and
iii) Furniture placement should consider available space, potential
for use and proximity to activity centers.
c. In all vias, chain link enclosures of stairs, windows, entrances or other
features, and other similar barriers are prohibited.
F. Landscaping. To enhance the appearance and drainage of all vias, the
following standards apply:
a. The planting of Boston Ivy and /or other climbing vegetation is
encouraged on all façades of buildings adjoining a via. Planting
pockets must extend a minimum of 9” from the edge of all building
facades, and must exceed 2’ in length;
b. The planting of trees and shrubs is required along the edge of vias
where the reviewing board or commission determines that sufficient
space exists;
c. Where sufficient space is not available for planting beds, the use of
planter boxes, trellises and/or green screens are encouraged; and
d. The use of porous concrete and green pavers is encouraged.
G. Lighting. To ensure the use of appropriate lighting for safety, security,
visibility, and architectural enhancement, the following standards apply:
a. Via lighting must be provided by adjoining property owners where
needed to ensure the safety of pedestrians. The need for such lighting
and the type of lighting to be provided will be determined by the
reviewing board or commission;
b. Surface lighting of building facades lining a via is encouraged over
freestanding pathway lighting;
c. The scale, color, design and material of all luminaires must enhance the
via in which it is located, as well as be compatible with the surrounding
buildings and urban space; and
d. Where lighting is used for architectural enhancement of building
features, art or landscaping, appropriate methods shall be used to
minimize reflection and glare.
H. Design standards. All portions of buildings and sites directly adjoining a via
must maintain a human scale and a fine grain building rhythm that provides
architectural interest for pedestrians and other users, and provide windows and
doors overlooking the via to provide solar access, visual interaction and
surveillance of the via. To improve the aesthetic experience and to encourage
pedestrians to explore vias, the following design standards apply for all
properties with building facades adjoining a via:
a. Blank walls shall not face a via. Walls facing vias shall include windows
and architectural features customarily found on the front facade of a
building, such as awnings, cornice work, edge detailing or decorative
finish materials. Awnings shall be straight sheds without side flaps, not
cubed or curved, and must be at least 8’ above the via at the lowest drip
edge;
b. First floor retail, restaurant and office uses shall be directly accessible to
the public from adjoining vias;
c. Glass shall be clear or lightly tinted only. Opaque applications shall not
be applied to any glass surfaces facing a via unless specifically
approved by the Planning Board to screen electrical, plumbing or
mechanical equipment;
d. Creative designs and bold use of color is encouraged; and
e. Any building façade that terminates a view, as designated on the Via
Activation Plan, shall provide distinct and prominent architectural
features of enhanced character and visibility or artistic elements, which
reflect the importance of the building’s location and create a positive
visual landmark within the via system.
I. Commercial Signage. To encourage creativity, to add color and to activate the
urban space in vias, the following sign standards apply for all properties with
building facades immediately adjoining alleys or passages:
a. All doors adjoining alleys or passages are required to provide signage
identifying the first floor business(es) contained therein;
b. All first floor uses with rear or side entrances onto alleys or passages
must provide pedestrian scaled projecting signs mounted perpendicular
to the corresponding façade. One projecting sign is required for each
façade with an entrance onto a via. Projecting signs may extend no
more than 4’ from the building façade, projecting banners may extend
no more than 6’ from the building facade, and neither may encroach the
clear zone for service vehicles;
c. The lowest point of all projecting signage must be a minimum of 8’
above grade;
d. Alley and passage commercial signage must be reviewed in accordance
with the procedure contained in Article 2 of the Birmingham Sign
Ordinance (Chapter 86 of the City Code), but is intended to be bolder
and more graphic in nature than storefront signage; and
e. The square footage of the required alley and passage commercial
signage required in this section will not count against the maximum
total signage permitted on the site.
J. Wayfinding Signage. To encourage the use of all urban space by attracting
businesses to vias, and by engaging pedestrians to explore vias, the following
wayfinding sign standards apply for all properties with building facades
immediately adjoining any entrance to a via:
a. A directory sign is required to be mounted on at least one of the
building facades adjoining an entrance to a via. Directory signs must
identify all businesses contained within or along a via. Where more
than one building façade adjoins an entrance to a via, the board or
commission reviewing the signage and/or site plan shall select the best
façade(s) for this purpose;
b. An approved City-standard passage wayfinding identification sign must
be provided at each entrance to a via, and at all connection points
where alleys or passages converge, intersect or end.
c. All alley and passage wayfinding signage must be reviewed in
accordance with the procedure contained in Article 2 of the Birmingham
Sign Ordinance (Chapter 86 of the City Code); and
d. The square footage of the required alley and passage wayfinding
signage required in this section will not count against the maximum
total signage permitted on site.
ORDAINED this ________ day of _____________, 2012, to be effective upon publication.
________________________
Mark Nickita, Mayor
________________________
Laura Broski, City Clerk
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE BIRMINGHAM CITY CODE
TO AMEND ARTICLE 9, SECTION 9.02 (DEFINITIONS) TO AMEND THE DEFINITION FOR
ALLEYS AND PASSAGES AND TO ADD DEFINITIONS FOR ACTIVE VIAS, CONNECTING
VIAS, DESTINATION VIAS AND VIAS.
THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:
Article 9, section 9.02, Definitions:
Alley: A public An urban way that affords a secondary means of vehicular access to
abutting property.
Active Via: An alley with a mix of uses and activities - used by
pedestrians/bicyclists for travel, some commercial activities, pausing for respite,
outdoor dining etc. with shared use by service vehicles (deliveries, trash removal
etc.).
Connecting Via: A passage that provides a through-block connection for
pedestrians and/or bicyclists only.
Destination Via: Alleys or passages that people are drawn to as a destination for
participating in cultural activities, commercial activities, recreational activities,
special events, and other activities.
Passage: An improved pedestrian public or bicycle way physically separated from
vehicular routes designed to that supplements mixed-use travel lanes and alleys as
part of a community’s circulation system including, but not necessarily limited to,
sidewalks, pedestrian malls and gallerias.
Via: An alley or passage.
ORDAINED this ________ day of _____________, 2012, to be effective upon publication.
________________________
Mark Nickita, Mayor
________________________
Laura Broski, City Clerk
Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages City of Birmingham, 2012 Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
Table of Contents Executive Summary…………………………………………………………….…………… 2 Activating Alleys & Passages..........................................................…. 3 Purpose, Goals & Objectives of Strategy.………………………………………... 3 Birmingham’s Commitment to Alleys & Passages.…………………………… 4 Existing Conditions…………………………………………………………………………. 5 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………. 10 (1) Create a New Classification System ……………………………..….. 10 Destination Vias…………………………………………………………………….10 Active Vias…………….………………………………………………………………11 Connecting Vias…………………………………………………………………….12 (2) Establish Design Guidelines & Enhancement Strategies…….. 13 Paving…………………………………………………………………………………….13 Lighting………………………………………………………………………………….13 Furniture……………………………………………………………………………….14 Landscaping…………………………………………………………………………..14 Naming Rights……………………………………………………………………….15 Pedestrian Scaled Design………………………………………………………15 Commercial Signage……..………………………………………………………15 (3) Establish Activation Strategies.……………………..……………….… 16 Active Edges.…………………………………………………………………………16 Multi‐Modal Access……………………………………………………………...17 Public Art.………………………………………………………………………………18 Wayfinding…………………..……………………………………………………….18 Implementation Strategy..………………………………………………………….… 1 19 Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
Executive Summary This study identifies the alleys and passages in and around Downtown Birmingham, and seeks to provide a framework to classify alleys and passages into different categories based on their existing uses and to outline options to capitalize on opportunities for aesthetic improvement and activation of these spaces. Alley and passage classifications provide a flexible framework from which to consider the level of regulation needed to achieve the desired outcomes for each type. The proposed classifications are not meant to be static, and may change due to future land usage, new technology, new destination locations etc. Destination vias have the most potential to assume an active and dynamic role in the urban fabric. These vias would likely be the focus for capital improvement projects, new development and business attraction, as well as the possible programming of events to attract residents and visitors. Active vias have great potential for improvement as enhanced multi‐modal corridors that provide through block connections. These vias would likely be the focus for capital improvement projects to improve the access and safety for all users, as well as guidelines or incentives to encourage businesses to expand into the via and improve their alley facades. Connecting vias have great potential for aesthetic enhancements to create interesting and creative spaces to expand the pedestrian network and greatly enhance walkability. These vias would likely be the focus for smaller scale capital improvement projects to improve the aesthetic of the via, such as new paving, landscaping, furniture or public art. Recommendations for design guidelines, enhancement strategies and activation strategies are outlined to encourage the enhancement of the public realm by improving pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, creating active and interesting building edges to provide better engagement opportunities with pedestrians, and to allow for the creation of both formal and informal gathering spaces in alleys and passages. Recommendations ensure high quality urban design, engaging and pedestrian friendly activities, while at the same time recognizing that service functions will likely continue to exist and need to be accommodated in certain places. 2 Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
Activating Alleys & Passages Alleys and passages in cities across the world have traditionally provided a functional purpose, such as access for service vehicles collecting trash, deliveries for adjacent businesses, back door access for employees or corridors for power lines, water and sewer lines and drainage. Alleys usually run behind or along side of buildings to keep these service functions hidden from view and out of street. Many alleys and passages are found in older areas of town, often in historic districts, and were designed at a time when large motorized vehicles did not exist. Away from the bustle of main roads, alleys and passages offer an integrated system of pedestrian and vehicle linkages that connect streets and districts. Often alleys and passages are forgotten spaces. They are not considered part of the main streetscape, they are hidden from view, and do not attract visitors other than service providers. However, alleys and passages provide opportunities to create unique public spaces. In tight urban conditions, alleys and passages provide intimate corridors for pedestrians, and allow for convenient short cut routes to adjoining streets and destinations. Encouraging activity to spill out from adjacent buildings into alleys and passages can strengthen retail, provide additional space for outdoor dining and special events and can expand the pedestrian and bicycle network linking many different many different areas. Public investment designed to improve the aesthetics of alleys and passages, such as paving upgrades, the addition of furniture, lighting or landscaping, will attract people to these spaces, and will have revitalization benefits for all adjacent properties. Purpose, Goals & Objectives of Strategy Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages is designed to provide a plan to manage and maintain existing alley and passage assets in the city, and to prepare a framework for re‐imagining life in these intimate urban spaces. This plan includes a study of existing alleys and passages in Birmingham, and reviews existing master plans and ordinances, and the improvements that have been implemented in alleys and passages as a result of these plans. This strategy then identifies needed improvements and provides recommendations for both design enhancements and activation strategies to encourage activity in hidden and underutilized urban spaces to provide active, attractive spaces that enhance public life and increase pedestrian activities in the study area. The overarching purpose of this plan is to inspire interest from adjoining property owners, businesses and residents in creating high quality urban spaces that encourage active use and engagement to enhance public life in Birmingham. Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages seeks to recognize the role and character of alleys and passages in creating a fine grain public realm, and seeks to activate these urban spaces. Goals of the activation plan are: ◊ To maintain and enhance existing alleys and passages; ◊ To improve the walkability and permeability of public spaces in Birmingham; ◊ To facilitate and create opportunities for activation of selected alleys and passages; ◊ To ensure the safety and well being of all users of alleys and passages; ◊ To facilitate new development that assists in achieving desired outcome of plan; and 3 Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
◊ To form the basis for ordinance amendments that will encourage a form of development in alleys and passages that will achieve the physical qualities necessary to enhance, activate and re‐imagine the unique urban public spaces in Birmingham. Birmingham’s Commitment to Alleys and Passages Existing plans such as the Downtown Birmingham 2016 Plan identify and classify existing alleys and passages in the downtown core, and provide basic recommendations for improving and activating the City’s alleys and passages. The recommendations contained in Circulation 5 of the 2016 Plan state that alleys and passages should be held to higher aesthetic standards, similar to sidewalks, given their pedestrian function. Appendix C‐9 of the 2016 Plan provides a map of all alleys in downtown Birmingham, and classifies each as an alley or a pedestrian passage. The Birmingham Zoning Ordinance also requires screening for parking adjacent to alleys and passages in the same manner provided along streets. Over the last several years there have been many changes downtown that have activated the streets and enhanced the public life. The construction of new residential units downtown, the revitalization of three downtown parks and the addition of a Farmers’ Market have all brought more people downtown, both residents and visitors alike. The substantial increase in outdoor dining has also activated the streets, and increased public life. The implementation of the bistro ordinance has provided the potential for additional improvements to passages by requiring 70% glazing between 1 and 8 feet above grade on building facades the face a pedestrian passage. Examples of recent and proposed improvements to these spaces can be seen in the Willits alley that was improved at the time the Willits building was constructed and the Social passage which was approved as a part of the Social bistro plan. Willits Alley 4 Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
Social Passage Existing Conditions Birmingham has many alleys located in the downtown and throughout the city that are in varying states of repair. The potential for improvement on some level is present in all cases. However, as stated in the 2016 Plan, the function of these spaces must be considered when determining the level of pedestrian orientation that should be implemented. The following list is an account of the classifications given to the downtown alleys identified in the 2016 Plan. Alleys These spaces are identified as alleys in the 2016 Plan due to the service oriented uses that take place here. The need to maintain access for deliveries and trash pickup is critical in these areas and must therefore maintain a clear zone that vehicles can traverse. • Willits alley, W. Maple to Willits 5 Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
•
Hamilton alley, Park to Hamilton •
Telephone exchange alley, Bates to Pierce 6 Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
•
Pierce alley, Pierce to Merrill •
Henrietta alley, Pierce to Henrietta •
Peabody alley, off Brown 7 Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
Passages These areas are identified as being non‐motorized cut‐throughs. As there is no service function to these passages, the pedestrian scale and activity can be allowed to flourish without the clear zone restrictions necessary in the alleys. • Social passage, W. Maple to Hamilton •
Via passage/ Briggs building 8 Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
•
Edison/220 passage/ Merrill to Brown – although identified by the 2016 plan as a passage, it should be noted that this passage can be classified into both categories. The east side of the building is accessible to non‐motorized users only while the west side is accessible by car and truck and is used for the service functions identified in alleys. •
Daines passage/ Brown to Daines. Additional opportunities and locations can benefit from the implementation of design and activation guidelines throughout commercial areas in town. As development occurs in Downtown Birmingham, Triangle District and the Rail District, alleys and passages should be treated in a manner consistent with the recommendations established in this document. The map below identifies existing alleys throughout downtown and immediate area. Insert GIS map of Alleys here 9 Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
Recommendations: (1) Create a New Classification System for Alleys & Passages Existing alleys and passages can be broken up into different classifications for further study based on their future potential. As the urban context surrounding alleys and passages varies, so does the level of access provided and the type of services supported by the alley. These factors, along with others such as location within commercially zoned areas, presence of adjoining commercial development that could extend into the alley or passage, existing or future opportunity for mid block connections, and level of importance in existing master plans, were all considered in the process of designating alleys and passages into a new classification system that can form the basis for future development and enhancement. Three types of alleys and passages have been identified based on existing conditions, existing use and future potential. (a) Destination Vias – Alleys and passages that people are drawn to as a destination for public gathering to participate in cultural activities, commercial activities, recreational activities, outdoor dining, special events, or pausing for respite. Pedestrian scaled public space designed without vehicular access for service functions. Destination vias have the most potential to assume an active and dynamic role in the urban fabric. These vias would likely be the focus of capital improvement projects (public or private), new development and business attraction, as well as the possible programming of events to attract residents and visitors. Destination vias will likely be the focus for early implementation of design guidelines and activation strategies. Possible destination vias may include, but are not limited to: ◊Café Via Passage & Plaza ◊Social Passage (Formerly known as Tokyo Sushi Passage) ◊South Passage & Plaza 10 Café Via Passage & Plaza Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
(b) Active Vias – Alleys and passages with a mix of uses and multi‐modal activities throughout, including use by pedestrians and bicyclists for travel, smaller scale commercial activities such as outdoor dining or retail sales and display, small pockets for pedestrian respite, with shared use by vehicles for access to parking and service functions. Active vias have great potential for improvement as enhanced multi‐modal corridors that provide through block connections. These vias would likely be the focus of capital improvement projects (public or private) to improve the access and safety for all users, as well as guidelines or incentives to encourage businesses to expand into the via and improve their via facades. Active vias will likely be the focus of ongoing implementation of design guidelines and activation strategies, as they may require significant changes in the behavior and use patterns of adjoining businesses. Possible active vias may include, but are not limited to: ◊ Edison’s / 220 Alley ◊ Bigby Coffee / Churchill’s Alley ◊ Hamilton Alley (north) ◊ Hamilton Alley (south) / E. Maple Alley (north) ◊ Brooklyn Pizza Alley Bigby Coffee / Churchill’s Alley 11 Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
(c) Connecting Vias – Alleys and passages that provide a through‐block connection for pedestrians and/or bicyclists only, with limited opportunities for commercial activity, limited service function and no vehicular access. Connecting vias have great potential for aesthetic enhancements to create interesting and creative spaces for pedestrian and bicycle use to expand the non‐motorized network and greatly enhance walkability. These vias would likely be the focus for smaller scale capital improvement projects (public or private) to improve the aesthetic of the via, such as new paving, landscaping, seating or public art. Connecting vias will provide low cost, high impact, implementation opportunities. Possible connecting vias may include, but are not limited to: ◊ Daines Passage ◊ Edison’s Passage ◊ Commonwealth Passage ◊ Shain Townhouse Passage ◊ Clark Hill Passage (S. Old Woodward) Edison’s Passage Commonwealth Passage 12 Daines Passage Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
(2) Establish Design Guidelines & Enhancement Strategies Depending on the classification of an existing (or new) alley or passage, different types of design guidelines and enhancement strategies can be applied as new developments or capital improvements are proposed. The following elements should be integrated into design guidelines or design standards for each classification of alley or passage: Paving – Paving should be consistent with the materials and design patterns within the existing streetscape standards. Broom finish concrete with exposed aggregate accents is typical. Generally, broom finish concrete should serve as the primary pedestrian path. Lighting – Pedestrian scale street lights may be added where feasible. Architectural and accent lighting should be encouraged to provide added visual interest. In addition, surface lighting of building facades and edges in alleys and passages should be encouraged as it provides better visibility and security. 13 Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
Furniture – Where feasible and practical, streetscape furniture should be provided including trash receptacles, bike racks, benches and City news racks. Determining factors in placement should include available space, potential for use and adjacency to activity centers. Landscaping – Additional landscaping and greenery should be added wherever possible, particularly vertical elements along the edges of alleys and passages. This includes trees, bushes, shrubs, and flowers as well as vertical plantings in planter boxes, trellises or green screens with plant material such as climbing ivy and vines. 14 Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
Naming Rights – A naming rights program could be explored as an additional method to provide funding for physical improvements in public alleys and passages. Pedestrian Scaled Design ‐ All portions of buildings and sites directly adjoining an alley or passage should maintain a human scale and a fine grain building rhythm that provides architectural interest for pedestrians and other users. Design details such as windows and doors overlooking the alley or passage to provide solar access, visual interaction and surveillance of the alley and passage should be encouraged or required. Walls facing alleys and passages should include windows and architectural features customarily found on the front facade of a building, such as awnings, cornice work, edge detailing or decorative finish materials. Commercial Signage – To draw people into alleys and passages, directory signage should be provided at each entry to all alleys and passages. In addition, to encourage creativity, to add color and to activate the public space in alleys and passages, specific sign guidelines should be created for all properties with building facades immediately adjoining alleys or passages. Alley and passage signage should be bold and graphic in nature, and be used by individual businesses to draw attention to the rear access points of ground floor businesses. 15 Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
(3) Establish Activation Strategies Depending on the classification of an existing (or new) alley or passage, different types of activation strategies can also used to encourage new developments and new uses. The following elements should be integrated into activation guidelines or standards for each classification of alley or passage: Active Edges ‐ To enhance the amenity and character of alleys and passages, to enhance visual interest and encourage surveillance of urban spaces, active uses should be provided at the ground floor level along the majority of the edges of buildings located adjacent to alleys and passages. Uses such as outdoor dining, retail sales and display and art display should be encouraged to allow first floor uses to spill out into alleys and passages. All first floor uses should be directly accessible to the public from adjoining alleys and passages, with care taken to avoid conflict with pedestrian movement in the alley or passage. All doors adjoining alleys or passages should be required to provide signage identifying the first floor business(es) to attract visitors and add visual impact and color to the alley or passage. Uses such as drive‐in facilities or commercial uses that encourage patrons to remain in their automobiles while receiving goods or services should be specifically prohibited in all alleys and passages. In addition, conditions that limit opportunities and the desirability of pedestrian uses, such as outdoor automatic food and drink vending machines , unscreened trash receptacles and unscreened outdoor storage should also be prohibited in alleys and passages. 16 Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
Uses such as community gardens and public plaza space should be developed in or adjacent to alleys and passages to enhance public life by providing intimate public gathering spaces for special events, rest and relaxation or people watching. Design details for such spaces should include formal seating to create “places to pause” and informal seating that is integrated into the design of the public space, such as planter boxes or sculpture bases at chair height. Multi‐Modal Access – Active and functional alleys and passages should provide 24 hour accessibility for bicycles, pedestrians and /or vehicles depending on their widths and functions. For alleys and passages with vehicular access, only slow speeds should be permitted, and equitable access should be provided to bikes, pedestrians and cars. Reconfiguration of existing traffic flow may be needed to provide for the safe flow of pedestrians and bicyclists. To allow alleys and passages with existing vehicular traffic to maintain safe access for service vehicles, a clear zone should be maintained. In addition, to ensure safe and secure pedestrian and bicycle routes in alleys and passages, it is important to reserve a shared zone that minimizes conflict points for bikes and pedestrians, while integrating any required service or access function. Any barriers that preclude full access of alleys and passages, such as parking gates, fences or enclosures blocking off stairs, windows or entrances should be prohibited. Alleys and passages should also be utilized to provide multi‐modal connections to key destinations throughout the city, such as parks or public libraries. 17 Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
Public Art – Tasteful and appropriate public art should be encouraged in all available space. Special emphasis should be placed on creating terminating views that provide visual cues to users that these spaces are intended to be active and friendly. Wayfinding Signage ‐ Wayfinding signage can be that most effective method of raising awareness that alley and passages exist and that they provide additional retail and recreation opportunities as well as providing convenient short cuts and increased connectivity in commercial areas. 18 Activating Urban Space: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages
Implementation Strategy Implementation Timeframe Phase 1 Phase 2 Action Deliverable Identify and classify all alleys & passages within study area Document existing conditions (pavement width, condition etc.) Identify multi‐modal connection opportunities within alleys & passages Identify green strategies for alleys & passages Develop conceptual case studies Maps and photo survey Prepare Information Sheets on all alleys & passages within study area Integrate findings and connections into Multi‐Modal Plan Establish a pilot section of green alley within the study area One conceptual plan for each classification of alley and passage Develop Design Guidelines for private Alleys & Passages Overlay ordinance, or development adjacent to alleys & integration of regulations into existing passages Downtown & Triangle Overlays Develop signage standards for alleys & Amendments to Sign and Zoning passages Ordinance Improve wayfinding Create brand for alley & passage wayfinding, develop standards for location of directional signage, install Incorporate Public Art into alleys & Attend Public Arts Board meeting to passages present Activating Urban Spaces: A Strategy for Alleys & Passages, encourage placement of public art to enhance alleys & passages Consider establishing a Naming Establish donor program for naming Program for alleys & passages and improvement of alleys & passages Investigate opportunities to attract Create incentive provisions in Zoning and promote business within alleys Ordinance or establish activation and passages requirements, prepare pamphlet for distribution to existing businesses Review implementation strategies and Prepare Capital Improvement Plan for priority for capital improvements alleys and passages with identified funding sources Encourage social, artistic, cultural Develop Event Calendar and Program events within destination alleys & for alleys & passages passages Conduct regular review and plan Revised strategy to reflect changes update every 5 years 19 City of Birmingham
Alleys and Passages Inventory
July 2012
Tab l e o f Co n te nt s
2
BaLdwin Passage  
Willits alley  
Tender Passage  
Bates Alley  
Brooklyn Pizza Alley  
Churchill’s Alley  
Edison Passage (WEST SIDE)  
Edison Passage (EAST SIDE)  
Daines Passage  
Henrietta alley  
N. Hamilton  
S. Hamilton/ E. Maple  
Social Passage  
Commonwealth Passage  
Cafe Via Passage  
Clark
Hill Passage  
Shain Townhouse Passage  
Peabody Alley  
Peabody Plaza  
Peabody Mansion Passage  
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
3
Downtown Alleys & Passages Classifications map
LEGEND
Active
Parks
Connecting
Crosswalks
Destination
Vistas
Parking Structures
4
5
BaLdwin Passage
bALDWIN pASSAGE
1
martin
martin
chester
2
Baldwin
Passage
chester
Merrill
2
EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS
Classification: Connecting
1
Width: 4.5 foot sidewalk, passage is approximately 11 feet wide
Surface: Concrete sidewalk
SURFACE CONDITION: Excellent
Existing SERVICES: Trash, adjacent to the passage
SCREENING: Dumpster enclosure adequately screens trash
Vehicles: None, exclusively a pedestrian passage
Parking: No
Bicycle Facilities: No existing facilities
Lighting: Lighting from adjacent patios & bollards along the
passage
Furniture: No
Plaza/ Gathering Space: No
Landscaping: Thick tree coverage lining the passage, and flower
bed adjacent to the sidewalk on the Martin side of the passage
Pedestrian Scaled Architecture: Patios, sliding doors &
windows of the senior housing facility
Outdoor commercial uses: None
Trees
Signage: None
Landscaping
Wayfinding Signage: None
Dumpster
Visual Features/ Art: Nice landscaping
Screening Structure/Enclosure
Other Notes: A well-maintained passage that does not appear
to be widely traveled
6
7
Willits alley
Willits Alley
1
d
Ol
its
ll
W
Wi
ar
dw
oo
d
2 benches
l
Wil
D
Ol
Bates
its
Willits
Alley
W
Enclosure
oo
2
Bates
2
Classification: Active
3
4
2016 Plan Type: Alley
Width: Approximately 27 feet east to west, approximately 14 to
22 feet wide north to south
2 benches
Surface: Concrete with aggregate accents
“No Parking in
Fire Lane” signs
SURFACE CONDITION: Good in most areas, OK in others
Existing SERVICES: Trash & deliveries
SCREENING: Some trash receptacles are screened, utilities are
screened by a green wall on the Willits edge of the alley
Vehicles: Cars & trucks
d
ar
dw
Maple
1
Maple
3
Speed Limit: Not posted
Parking: There are a number of “No Parking in Fire Lane”
signs, parallel parking and perpendicular parking occurs in
areas throughout the alley
Lighting: 9 City street lamps & wall-mounted lights on the
buildings along the passage
Furniture: 4 City benches along the alley
Plaza/Gathering Space: There are two small areas to
pause for repose in the alley
Perpendicular or Angled Parking
Terminating Vista
Landscaping: Green walls, trees, shrubs and other plantings
Trash Compactors & Dumpsters
Green Wall
Trees
Cars parallel park here in the alley
Landscaping
Entrances for covered parking or garage door
Pedestrian Scaled Architecture: Back doors of
businesses, windows, and balconies on many of the buildings
4
Compactor Enclosure
Signage: Many of the buildings have signage on the wall
facing the alley
Wayfinding Signage: On Maple there is a wayfinding sign
Visual Features/ Art: Nice mix of colors, textures,
architectural & green features
Other Notes: Clean and well-maintained alley that could use
more delineation for parking, deliveries and pedestrian traffic
8
9
Tender Passage
Tender pASSAGE
1
MAPLE
Tender
Passage
MAPLE
HENRIETTA
Bates
Alley
3
1
2
BATES
martin
Stairs to
Bates
Alley
2
Henrietta
Staircases
Bates Alley
Width: 3 feet wide at its narrowest & 7 feet wide at its widest
Existing SERVICES: None in the passage, however, there is a
dumpster in the Bates Alley adjacent to the Tender Passage
SCREENING: No
Parking: No parking in the Tender Passage, however, there is
parking in the adjacent Bates Alley
3
MARTIN
Lighting: Small wall-mounted lights
Furniture: No
Landscaping: None
Pedestrian Scaled Architecture: 2 staircases, a door to the
other part of “Tender” & high first floor windows
Side entrance to Tender
Dumpster
Signage: None
Visual Features/ Art: View of Bates Alley, telephone pole & wires
Other Notes: This passage is rather plain and aesthetic
improvements could be made
10
11
Bates Alley
Bates Alley
1
MAPLE
Tender
Passage
BATES
HENRIETTA
MAPLE
Bates
Alley
Staircases
BATES
1
3
Width: 26 feet at narrowest point where there’s no parking
Surface: Concrete & asphalt
Vehicles: Cars and trucks
2
“No
Parking
in Alley”
signs
SURFACE CONDITION: Okay, could use some work in areas
SCREENING: Dumpster screening for townhouses next to garage
doors
3 stairs up
to Tender
Passage
Henrietta
martin
2
3
Parking: “No Parking in Alley” signs. Perpendicular parking
permitted on the north side of the alley
MARTIN
Furniture: No
Landscaping: Small planters mounted on the walls of buildings
businesses and some windows
Tender Passage
Perpendicular Parking
Signage: None
Garage doors for townhouses
Dumpster
Visual Features/ Art: Telephone poles & wires, large plain
white brick wall
Dumpster Enclosure
Other Notes: Connects to the Tender Passage with a set
of three stairs. Dumpsters could be enclosed, and areas for
pedestrian and vehicular traffic could be more clearly defined.
Terminating Vista
12
13
Brooklyn Pizza Alley
Brooklyn Pizza Alley
1
MAPLE
PIERCE
Henrietta
Brooklyn
Pizza
Alley
MARTIN
MAPLE
2
Churchill’s
Henrietta
Width: Approximately, 27 feet wide, excluding parking area
Surface: Asphalt
SURFACE CONDITION: Poor
3
2
3
“No
Parking
in Alley”
signs
4
PIERCE
1
y
Alle
SCREENING: None
MARTIN
Parking: “No Parking in Alley”signs, perpendicular parking on
the north side of the alley
Furniture: None
Landscaping: None
4
Signage: On the back of some businesses
Dumpsters & Recycle Bins
Visual Features/ Art: Telephone poles
Potential Crosswalk Connection
Other Notes: A busy service alley
14
15
Churchill’s Alley
Churchill’s alley
1
MAPLE
Ol
Brooklyn
Pizza Alley
d
MAPLE
W
d
ar
dw
oo
Pierce
l
il
rr
Me
Churchill’s
Alley
2
1
Brooklyn Pizza
Alley
OLD
2
W
3
PIERCE
Width: Approximately 18 feet wide
Surface: Asphalt
ARD
DW
OO
SURFACE CONDITION: Poor
SCREENING: None
3
“No
Parking
in Alley”
signs
Parking: “No Parking in Alley”signs, however, parallel parking
occurs. There is perpendicular parking in a bump out & covered
parking adjacent to the alley
Raised
area with
bench
4
MERRILL
Lighting: 3 City street lamps, some small wall-mounted lights
Furniture: None
Landscaping: Climbing vines on two buildings
Pedestrian Scaled Architecture: Alley entrance to
Biggby’s coffee, back doors of businesses and a few windows
n
iso
Ed
4
Signage: Small wall sign for Biggby’s Coffee entrance, one
business has a decal on its back door
Entrance for covered parking area
Dumpster
Street Lamps
Visual Features/ Art: Corners break up the length of the
alley, climbing vines
Terminating Vista
Green Wall
Cars parallel park here in the alley
Other Notes: A busy service alley with good vista
opportunities. This alley could benefit from more clear
delineation of pedestrian & service uses
16
17
Edison Passage (WEST SIDE)
Edison Passage (West Side)
d
Ol
1
oo
W
l
ar
dw
il
rr
ME
d
Edison
Passage
PIERCE
ll
OLD
M
Daines
Passage
4
ARD
W
2
D
OO
W
e
WN
O
BR
i
rr
3
2016 Plan Type: Passage
2
Width: Approximately, 16 feet wide total: 5 feet in the
pedestrian area & 11 feet wide for vehicles
Surface: Aggregate & concrete with brick accents
Pierce
SURFACE CONDITION: Good in some areas, poor in area near
the internal plaza
Existing SERVICES: Trash & deliveries in area adjacent to the
passage
Parking
Structure
Covered
area with
2 parking
spaces
1
n
ow
Br
SCREENING: None
3
DAINES
e
ag
ss
Pa
Parking: One space behind 220 & two spaces by the large
brick building adjacent to the passage. Bollards prevent parking
along edge of the passage
Lighting: 1 City street lamp in plaza area, wall-mounted lights
illuminate covered portion of the passage, wall mounted lights
on the back of 220
D
Furniture: 4 benches and 6 large planters in the plaza
Plaza/ Gathering Space: Small plaza along the passage
and landscaped plaza with sculptures adjacent to Merrill side
Landscaping: Tree, shrubs and flowers along the passage
es
n
ai
4
Pedestrian Scaled Architecture: Windows and doors
along the passage
Signage: Decals on business doors adjacent to passage
Green Wall
Parking space
Dumpster
Street Lamps
Plaza
Landscaping
Visual Features/ Art: Sculptures in plaza adjacent to the
Merrill side of the passage
Trees
Other Notes: The plaza could be made more inviting
18
19
Edison Passage (EAST SIDE)
Edison Passage (east Side)
d
Ol
1
oo
W
l
ar
dw
il
rr
ME
d
OLD
Edison
Passage
e
M
N
W
RO
1
B
Daines
Passage
Side door where deliveries
are made on foot
Screened utilities
2
2
Staircase
3
4
Width: The passage is approximately 12 feet wide and it is
wider where the plaza is located
4
Pierce
Surface: Concrete & aggregate along the passage; aggregate
with brick and concrete accents in the plaza
SURFACE CONDITION: OK along the passage, poor in the plaza
Existing SERVICES: Utilities, deliveries (on foot)
SCREENING: Lush landscaping provides some camouflage for
utilities, some utility screening
Parking
Structure
n
ow
Br
3
DAINES
Vehicles: No vehicles permitted on this portion of the Edison
passage
e
ag
ss
Pa
Lighting: 1 City street lamp in plaza area, small wall-mounted
lights on 220
Furniture: 3 benches
Plaza/ Gathering Space: Large plaza area with minimal
furniture & landscaping
Landscaping: Trees, shrubs and other plantings along the
northern half of passage
Pedestrian Scaled Architecture: Windows and doors on
buildings. A short brick wall, and a staircase located near the
plaza
ARD
W
D
OO
W
PIERCE
ll
i
rr
es
n
ai
D
4
Signage: None
Visual Features/ Art: Attractive buildings and landscaping
adjacent to the north side of the passage, the southern half of
the passage is located adjacent to a surface parking lot
Terminating Vista
Dumpster
Plaza
Street Lamps
Trees
Landscaping
Other Notes: This passage could be a good destination for a
public art installations
20
21
Daines Passage
Daines Passage
W
e
ag
ss
Pa
DAINES
2
ARD
DW
ON
EDIS
Daines
Passage
e
ag
ss
Pa
Edison
Passage
OO
d
N
OW
BR
ON
EDIS
ar
dw
oo
W
OLD
d
Ol
1
n
ow
Br
3
2
Surface: Aggregate with brick accents
Short brick wall
separates passage
from parking lot
SURFACE CONDITION: Good
Existing SERVICES: None
1
Short concrete
wall screens utilities
SCREENING: N/A
es
D
n
ai
Lighting: Wall-mounted lights
Furniture: None
Landscaping: Trees, shrubs,planters and flowers
Pedestrian Scaled Architecture: Windows along both
sides of the passage
Signage: None
3
Visual Features/ Art: Nicely landscaped
Other Notes: Well-maintained pedestrian passage
Landscaping
Trees
22
23
Henrietta alley
Henrietta Alley
Pierce
1
Townsend
Henrietta
Henrietta
Alley
brown
Townsend
2
4
2
3
1
PIERCE
henrietta
clock
mural
“No
Parking
in Alley”
signs
Surface: Concrete
SURFACE CONDITION: Good
SCREENING: None
3
Brown
Parking: “No Parking in Alley” sign
Lighting: Wall-mounted lights
Furniture: None
Landscaping: None
Signage: One business with its name on the back door
4
Visual Features/ Art: Interesting mural on the back of one
building
Entrance for covered parking area
Other Notes: This is a well-maintained & wide alley that is welllit in natural light
24
25
N. Hamilton Alley
N. Hamilton Alley
r
Pa
1
k
rn
Fe
le
r
pa
da
k
N. Hamilton
Alley
Parking
Structure
Hamilton
Fe
rn
da
le
2
3
2
1
Width: Approximately 30 feet wide excluding the angled parking
area
Surface: Concrete & asphalt
SURFACE CONDITION: OK
on
Hamilt
SCREENING: None
Parking: “No Parking in Alley” signs, parallel parking occuring
on the south side and angled parking spaces on the north side
Lighting: Recessed lighting above business doors
Furniture: None
Landscaping: Trees and other plantings along the side of the
alley adjacent to the parking structure
3
Dumpsters
Pedestrian Scaled Architecture: The businesses have
ample signage on the facade facing the alley and glass doors
that are welcoming back entrances for pedestrians
Cars parallel park here
Landscaping
Signage: Businesses have substantial signage on the facade
facing the alley
Trees
Angled Parking
Visual Features/ Art: Very open & inviting alley
Other Notes: This alley has great potential for outdoor dining,
events and sales
26
27
S. Hamilton/ E. Maple
S. Hamilton/ E. Maple
1
r
Pa
k
on
N. Hamilt
Hamilton
Commonwealth
Passage
d
Ol
S. Hamilton / E.
Maple Alley
W
ar
dw
oo
Maple
Social
Passage
2
Hamilton
3
3
2
4
Fenced
area
d
W
SURFACE CONDITION: OK in some areas, poor in others
ar
dw
oo
SCREENING: 1 dumpster enclosure built into a building, the rest
of the receptacles are unscreened
d
Parking: “No Parking in Alley” signs, parallel parking occurs as
well as perpendicular parking
1
Ol
Surface: Asphalt
k
Par
d
5
Covered
elevated
walkway
Maple
4
Furniture: None
Cafe Via Passage
Plaza/ Gathering Space: Small plaza with City benches
adjacent to the alley
Landscaping: Green wall, plantings near alley entrances &
small landscaped areas throughout the alley
Terminating Vista
Green Wall
Signage: A few businesses have their names on their back walls
Social Passage
Trees
Commonwealth Passage
Visual Features/ Art: Covered elevated walkway adjacent to
Hamilton & some interesting brick work on buildings
Landscaping
Dumpster Enclosure
Garage doors for townhouses
5
Other Notes: This alley could use some aesthetic upgrades
and better delineation for parking, deliveries & pedestrian traffic
Plaza
28
29
Social Passage
Social Passage
1
r
Pa
k
on
N. Hamilt
Hamilton
Commonwealth
Passage
d
Ol
S. Hamilton / E.
Maple Alley
W
ar
dw
oo
Maple
Social
Passage
Hamilton
k
Par
d
2
S. Maple /
E. Hamilton
Alley
Classification: Destination
3
Ol
d
2
oo
W
ar
dw
d
SCREENING: N/A
1
Maple
Lighting: 2 City street lamps, Social Bistro provides lighting in
outdoor seating area, 1 wall-mounted light fixture
Furniture: City newsrack, outdoor seating area for Social Bistro
Plaza/ Gathering Space: Outdoor seating at Social Bistro
Landscaping: Planter boxes on rails of outdoor seating area
3
Cafe Via Passage
Pedestrian Scaled Architecture: Outdoor seating area with
awning, large windows on Social Bistro
Outdoor commercial uses: Outdoor seating
Signage: Sign for JoS. A. Bank, decals on doors
Terminating Vista
Street Lamps
Visual Features/ Art: The Social Bistro outdoor seating area
provides a mix of vibrant colors & textures
Social Bistro outdoor seating area
Other Notes: This passage could be a good location for public
art installations
Planter boxes along rail of outdoor seating area
City newsrack
30
31
1
r
Pa
k
on
N. Hamilt
Hamilton
Commonwealth
Passage
d
Ol
S. Hamilton / E.
Maple Alley
W
ar
dw
oo
Maple
Social
Passage
Hamilton
k
Par
d
1
Commonwealth
Passage
S. Maple /
E. Hamilton
Alley
Ol
d
2
d
ar
dw
SCREENING: N/A
oo
W
Surface: Concrete & red brick pavers
2
Maple
Bicycle Facilities: A rack on Hamilton adjacent to the
passage
Lighting: 2 City street lamps
Furniture: None
Cafe Via Passage
Landscaping: Two trees, some woodchips on the edge of the
passage
Pedestrian Scaled Architecture: A few windows on the
Commonwealth Cafe building
Street Lamps
Signage: None
Social Passage
Trees
Visual Features/ Art: Vista opportunity
Other Notes: Well-maintained passage could benefit from
more landscaping or other added visual interest
32
33
Cafe Via Passage & Plaza
Cafe Via Passage & Plaza
1
y
S. Hamilton / E. Maple Alle
Shain
Townhouse
Passage
Maple
Cafe Via
Passage
& Plaza
d
Ol
dy
abo
d
ar
dw
oo
Pe
W
Clark Hill
Passage
Maple
2
1
2
Glass doors & windows
along this facade
3
dy
3
Parking
Structure
abo
Fireplace
4
Pe
Classification: The passage is Connecting & the plaza is a
Destination
Width: Approximately 20 feet wide in the passage, wider in the
plaza area
Cafe tables along
covered passage
d
Ol
Surface: Concrete & aggregate
oo
W
ar
dw
SCREENING: Utilities screened by landscaping on Peabody side
d
Lighting: Decorative hanging lamps in the covered passage &
recessed lighting
Furniture: Small cafe tables, chairs & a fountain in the
passage. Tables, chairs & a fireplace in the plaza area.
4
Plaza/ Gathering Space: Yes, Cafe Via Plaza
Landscaping: Trees, shrubs & other plantings near the parking
garage in the passage area, and raised planters in the plaza
area.
Pedestrian Scaled Architecture: The passage has ornate
decorative features for pedestrians, and the plaza adds to the
pedestrian scaled design in the plaza area
Outdoor commercial uses: Outdoor dining in the plaza
area
Signage: Sign above the Cafe Via covered passage entrance &
above the business doors along the uncovered passage
Terminating Vista
Landscaping
Cafe Via Covered Passage
Landscaping screening utilities
Clark Hill Passage
Cafe Via Plaza / outdoor seating area
Shain Townhouse Passage
Fountain
Brick privacy wall
Visual Features/ Art: Beautiful fountain & fireplace, and
decorative tiling in the Cafe Via passage
Trees
34
35
Clark Hill Passage
CLark Hill Passage
1
y
Shain
Townhouse
Passage
Maple
Cafe Via
Passage
& Plaza
d
Ol
abo
Maple
dy
d
ar
dw
oo
Pe
W
Clark Hill
Passage
2
Surface: Aggregate & decorative stone
Ol
Doors along
both sides of
the passage
d
Parking
Structure
dy
1
2
abo
Pe
3
oo
W
ar
dw
SCREENING: N/A
d
Lighting: Recessed lighting in the ceiling of the covered
passage
Furniture: None
Plaza/ Gathering Space: Adjacent to the Cafe Via Plaza
Landscaping: Planters at entrances
3
Pedestrian Scaled Architecture: Doors along the covered
passage
Outdoor commercial uses: Adjacent to outdoor dining in
the Cafe Via Plaza
Signage: Sign above the passage opening on Old Woodward,
address number signs within passage
Terminating Vista
Visual Features/ Art: Cafe Via Plaza vista
Other Notes: The passage is a little dark, it has potential as a
site for public art installations
Clark Hill Passage
Planters
36
37
1
y
Shain
Townhouse
Passage
Maple
Cafe Via
Passage
& Plaza
d
Ol
Maple
dy
abo
d
ar
dw
oo
Pe
W
Clark Hill
Passage
Shain Townhouse
Passage
2
Parking
Structure
dy
abo
2016 Plan Type: N/A
Pe
1
3
2
Ol
Surface: Concrete & aggregate
d
W
oo
ar
dw
SCREENING: N/A
d
Lighting: Recessed lighting on the 370 building
Furniture: None
Plaza/ Gathering Space: Near the Café Via Plaza
Landscaping: Green walls & small plantings
Pedestrian Scaled Architecture: Large windows on the
370 building and townhouse steps & entrances
Signage: Business signage
Wayfinding Signage: Sign for the door to Lippit O’Keefe
3
Visual Features/ Art: Green walls
Other Notes: A well-maintained and pleasant passage
Terminating Vista
Landscaping
Planters
Clark Hill Passage
Green Wall
38
39
Peabody Alley
Peabody ALLey
1
DY
BO
PEA
Peabody
Alley
Peabody
Plaza
Ol
Birmingham
Theater
d
W
3
Peabody
Mansion
Passage
1
3
Parking
Structure
DY
BO
PEA
BR
O
W
N
d
ar
dw
oo
2
2
Width: Approximately 15 feet on Peabody side, wider in areas off of
Brown
Ol
Surface: Concrete
d
SURFACE CONDITION: OK
W
oo
ar
dw
SCREENING: Utilities screening area. Dumpsters are not enclosed
d
“No
Parking
in Alley”
signs
Furniture: No
OW
BR
Landscaping: Green wall
Pedestrian Scaled Architecture: Back door of a business
ON
N
Plaza/ Gathering Space: Yes
MANSI
ge
dy sa
s
aboPa
Pe
Parking: “No Parking in Alley” signs, however, parallel parking occurs
Signage: One business with its name on the back door
Green Wall
Visual Features/ Art: Plaza when looking from Peabody;
opportunity to create a strong terminating vista from Brown
Garage Entrance/ Loading Dock
Terminating Vista
Dumpsters
Other Notes: This alley could benefit from more clear delineation of
pedestrian, parking & service uses. The alley could also benefit from
an enhanced terminating vista opportunity.
40
41
Peabody Plaza
Peabody Plaza
DY
BO
PEA
1
Peabody
Alley
Peabody
Plaza
Ol
Birmingham
Theater
d
d
ar
dw
oo
W
1
Parking
Structure
DY
Peabody
Mansion
Passage
2
BO
Back doors
& signs
Bars on
windows
PEA
BR
O
W
N
2
Classification: Destination
Width: Varies
Ol
Existing SERVICES: No
d
SCREENING: Utilities enclosure adjacent to the plaza, dumpsters
are not screened
oo
W
ar
dw
Vehicles: No, bollards prevent vehicles form entering the plaza
Parking: No
d
Lighting: 1 City street lamp, wall-mounted lights above business
doors
Furniture: No
Landscaping: Green wall and a few trees, shrubs, flowers & other
plantings
N
OW
BR
Pedestrian Scaled Architecture: Back doors of businesses,
windows with bars on the first floor, theater entrance
Signage: Decals on business back doors & second floor windows,
and a sign on theater overhang
Street Lamp
Visual Features/ Art: Pedestrian-scaled design of plaza
Green Wall
Landscaping
Other Notes: The movie theater can be used as a public cut
through to the plaza and Peabody Alley. Minor changes could be
made to this plaza to make it a livelier gathering space, such as
adding seating.
Trees
Screening Structure/Enclosure
Terminating Vista
Public pathway through the Birmingham Theater
42
ON
MANSI
ge
dy sa
s
aboPa
Pe
Plaza/ Gathering Space: Yes
43
Peabody Mansion Passage
Peabody Mansion Passage
dy
DY
BO
abo
PEA
Pe
1
Al
y
le
Peabody
Alley &
Plaza
d
Ol
N
d
ar
dw
O
N
1
W
oo
W
W
O
d
BR
Ol
d
Peabody
Mansion
Passage
BR
ar
dw
oo
W
2
Peabody
Mansion
2
Surface: Red brick pavers
3
Wall of windows
3
Existing SERVICES: No
Parking: No
Lighting: 4 City street lamps & 3 wall-mounted lights
Furniture: 7 City benches that wrap around tree trunks
Plaza/ Gathering Space: Yes, seating along passage
Landscaping: Bushes, trees & flowers
Pedestrian Scaled Architecture: Large windows on the office building,
Victorian Era architectural features on Peabody Mansion, Powerhouse Gym
entrance adjacent to the passage
Street Lamps
Landscaping
Signage: Decals on the glass doors of businesses
Terminating Vista
Visual Features/ Art: Large clock & planters on pillars near Old Woodward
Trees
Other Notes: Well-maintained and visually interesting passageway
44
45
PROPOSED PROJECT REPORT
HAMILTON ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS
City of Birmingham
Engineering Department
August 29, 2014
Proposed Project Report
Hamilton Alley Improvements
August 29, 2014
Page 1
PROPOSED PROJECT REPORT:
HAMILTON ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 2
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 2
HISTORY .............................................................................................................................. 2
ALLEY CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................. 2
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................................... 3
ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 3
SEWER LATERAL REPLACEMENT ......................................................................................... 3
IV. PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS ..................................................................................... 4
PUBLIC HEARING TO AUTHORIZE PROJECT .......................................................................... 4
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONFIRM ASSESSMENTS ..................................................................... 4
V. CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................. 4
ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ........................................................................... 4
INSPECTION .......................................................................................................................... 5
VI. COSTS & FINANCING......................................................................................................... 5
ASSESSABLE COSTS ............................................................................................................. 5
FINANCING INFORMATION ................................................................................................... 6
FUTURE PROJECTS ............................................................................................................... 7
VII.
DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................... 7
I.
August 29, 2014
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
Recently, the City has been considering ways to improve the City’s alleys and passageways. In
October of 2012, the City Commission adopted a master plan titled “Activating Urban Space: A
Strategy for Alleys & Passages” with the goal of improving the City’s alleys and encouraging
more use of these public spaces.
This alley has been designated as an Active Via in the City’s adopted master plan. According to
the plan, Active Vias can be used by pedestrians and bicyclists for travel, smaller scale
commercial activities (i.e. outdoor dining, retail sales and display), and shared use by vehicles
for access to parking and service functions. These Active Vias will need to maintain a clear zone
for use by service vehicles for deliveries and trash pickup, as well as vehicular access to adjacent
parking areas.
These Active Vias will be the focus of capital improvement projects to improve access and
safety for all users. The master plan proposes that the paving in Active Vias should be consistent
with the materials and design patterns within the existing streetscape standards, which include
broom finished concrete with exposed aggregate accents.
Based on the existing alley conditions, and the need for improvements, the City Commission has
directed the Engineering Dept. to begin the process of improving this alley. This report has been
prepared to allow property owners in the affected area to understand the full impact of the
proposed improvements project.
II.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
HISTORY
This alley is located in one of the oldest parts of the City.
The parcels adjacent to this alley were developed early in
the City’s history, and re-platted in 1934 as a part of
Assessor’s Plat No. 21. The existing concrete pavement
on this alley was constructed in 1929 as an 18-foot wide
and 8” thick concrete pavement after the installation of
the sewers in the alley. The alley pavement is contained
in the 18-foot wide City Right of Way.
The existing alley pavement has remained in service
since its original installation, with some patches being
replaced with new concrete as needed to accommodate
new building construction, and to replace some areas that
were badly cracked.
ALLEY CONDITIONS
The existing concrete pavement is in poor condition, with
several areas that are badly cracked, and others that have
severe pitting due to the age of the concrete. The existing
alley pavement is designed to drain to the center of the alleys, and into the existing catch basins.
August 29, 2014
Page 3
There are many areas that have cold patch,
especially at the joints between the concrete
slabs.
This alley is currently used as a service alley,
and there are several dumpsters that are
located in the City’s alley. There are
existing overhead wires that run in the alley
as well that serve the adjacent buildings.
III.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS
In accordance with the City’s adopted master plan for alleys and passageways, the pavement in
this alley is proposed to be upgraded with a decorative combination of plain broom-finished
concrete, with exposed aggregate concrete
accents. The pavement pattern will be
similar to the Willits Alley which was
reconstructed in 2002 and 2005, partially by
the developer of The Willits, and partially as
a City project.
As a part of the project, the City will review
the existing sewers to determine if they have
adequate capacity to handle the flow from
drainage areas they serve, and if they are in
good structural condition to serve this area
into the future. If necessary, the City will
make any necessary repairs and/or
replacement to ensure that the pipe is stable
for many years to come. Any work needed on the existing public sewer system will be funded
by the City’s Sewer Fund. These costs will not be specially assessed.
SEWER LATERAL REPLACEMENT
Beginning in 2007, whenever the City is constructing a new pavement such as envisioned in this
project, each building’s sewer lateral must be considered relative to its remaining service life.
Each property owner is responsible for the maintenance of their sewer lateral from their building
to the City sewer connection. The portion from the right-of-way line to the City sewer can be
quite costly to repair if done on an emergency basis because it has collapsed. Experience has
shown when older sewer laterals are replaced in conjunction with a pavement reconstruction
project, the cost of the work is generally substantially reduced. Replacing older sewer laterals
also significantly reduces the possibility of the new pavement having to be cut and patched
afterward due to the continuing decline of sewer laterals. With that in mind, should the City
August 29, 2014
Page 4
Commission authorize the installation of a new pavement, all buildings with sewer laterals older
than 50 years (the expected service life of an underground pipe from that era), will be included in
a second special assessment district requiring removal and replacement of the sewer lateral in the
right-of-way at property owner expense.
IV.
PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS
PUBLIC HEARING TO AUTHORIZE PROJECT
Installing a new permanent improved pavement in the Hamilton Alley will require that the City
Commission authorize the creation of a special assessment district. The open informational
meeting described on the cover letter of this booklet is meant to provide a forum to ensure that
you fully understand what is being proposed prior to the public hearing.
The public hearing will provide a forum for those impacted by the project to discuss the matter
with the City Commission prior to any decision on the project being made. Any interested party
may provide comment either by appearing and speaking at the meeting, or filing a letter with the
City Clerk.
After the public hearing is closed, the City Commission will determine if the proposed project is
necessary and advisable. If they vote in favor of the project, the City Assessor will be directed to
prepare a special assessment roll identifying all properties to be assessed, and the estimated
amounts to be assessed against each property (described below). A second public hearing will be
scheduled to confirm the roll of assessments.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONFIRM ASSESSMENTS
The City Commission will then schedule another public hearing for the confirmation of the roll.
The City will again invite all property owners to this hearing. Property owners will be able to
determine their particular assessment at the City Clerk's office for a period of ten days prior to
the hearing. The City Commission may confirm, correct, revise, or annul the special assessment
roll.
A property owner or party-in-interest may file a written appeal of the special assessment with the
Michigan Tax Tribunal within 30 days of the confirmation if the property owner or party-ininterest, or their agent, appears and protests the assessment at the public hearing held for the
purpose of confirming the roll. Appearance and protest may be made in person at the hearing, or
may be made by filing a letter with the City Clerk prior to the hearing. If a protest is not made at
the public hearing, an appeal may not be filed with the Michigan Tax Tribunal.
If the Commission confirms the roll, the Engineering Department will begin design of the
project. After construction takes place, and final costs are available, the roll is subject to
adjustment after the actual cost of construction is determined.
V.
CONSTRUCTION
ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
Construction will likely take the following course:
1.
All property owners will be notified, and all dumpsters, grease traps, etc. must be removed
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
August 29, 2014
Page 5
from the alley. Temporary staging areas would need to be set up to allow access to these
items to continue. Municipal Parking Lot #9 would likely be closed and used for this
purpose. A secondary area, if necessary, could be set up in parking spaces on Hamilton
Ave. near the westerly entrance to the alley.
The existing concrete surface will be removed.
Sewers and sewer services will be repaired and/or replaced on an as-needed basis.
New catch basins will be installed to accommodate the new alley design. Short sections of
storm sewer will be installed to drain these new basins.
The new grade of the alley will be roughed out.
A gravel base will be prepared before placing the concrete.
New concrete pavement will be installed. This will need to occur over different phases for
the placement of the broom finished concrete, and the exposed aggregate concrete accents.
The new pavement will take at least seven days to cure to gain strength before it can be reopened to traffic.
The above phases may be interchanged somewhat based upon contractor's preference, and
weather conditions. We anticipate the total time the alley is closed would be approximately six
to eight weeks.
Access to the alley will be restricted during the majority of the work. If there are times that
access can safely be allowed, the City will notify property owners and tenants that they can use
the alley to access their property. Once the new concrete is placed, it is important that all traffic
stay off a minimum of seven days.
All property owners and tenants will be notified ahead of time if access is to be restricted, so that
vehicles may be pulled out if needed. It is anticipated that if this project is approved by the City
Commission in the fall of 2014, the construction on this project will occur during the 2015
construction season.
INSPECTION
During construction, a City Inspector will be assigned to the project. The City Inspector and the
Contractor's Foreman will be on site every day that work is occurring, and will be available to
discuss any concerns or problems that you have as a result of the project. The Engineering
Department will also be available between 8 A.M. and 5 P.M. weekdays to respond to any
concerns that cannot be resolved at the work site (248-530-1850).
VI.
COSTS & FINANCING
ASSESSABLE COSTS
Assessable costs include pavement removal, grading, sewer service replacement, alley base and
concrete pavement, drainage structures, and final restoration. Complete reconstruction of an
alley is typically funded by special assessment to the adjacent properties that will benefit from
the project. The City Commission can authorize a special assessment district after taking input
from the property owners, if it declares the project a necessity. The estimated assessment to the
adjacent properties for this project is approximately $300 per foot of alley frontage. The
estimated cost includes engineering design, inspection, and project administration. Should bids
come in significantly different than anticipated, City staff will review the costs and make an
August 29, 2014
Page 6
appropriate recommendation to the City Commission.
FINANCING INFORMATION
Once the assessment has been confirmed (at the estimated rate), and funding has been
authorized, billings for the first installment shall be due and payable within 60 days after billing.
Normally this occurs near the starting date of the project. Bills not paid when due will be subject
to additional interest and penalties. If you desire to pay the cost of the assessment over a tenyear period, you will pay interest at the rate fixed by the Commission at the time of the
confirmation hearing. The interest rate selected reflects current market conditions, but will not
exceed 12%. You may pay off the assessment, including interest accrued to date; or you may
pay the total amount at the first payment date and not accrue any interest. If you elect to pay in
ten installments, interest will then be charged to the second and subsequent bills, based upon the
unpaid balance. Subsequent bills will arrive approximately every twelve months thereafter, until
the assessment is paid.
The following chart provides an example of the assessment period over 10 years using the rates
specified above. An interest rate of 5% has been selected for this example, only. For this
example, a 50 ft. lot width will be used. In addition, the sewer lateral replacement is estimated at
$80 per linear foot for 10 feet in the alley right of way. The assessment for this parcel would be
calculated as follows:
Alley Paving Assessment:
50 LF @ $300.00 / FT=
Sewer Lateral Replacement: 10 LF @ $80.00 / FT =
TOTAL:
$ 15,000
$
800
$ 15,800
Total Cost = $15,800
No interest on first payment.
Assumed Interest Rate = 5%
Interest due on unpaid balance.
Loan payable over 10-year period.
Principal payments = $15,800 divided by 10 = $1,580
YEARS
PRINCIPAL UNPAID
BALANCE
INTEREST
CHARGE
YEARLY
PAYMENT
1st Year
$1,580.00
$14,220.00
$
-
$1,580.00
2nd Year
$1,580.00
$12,640.00
$711.00
$2,291.00
3rd Year
$1,580.00
$11,060.00
$632.00
$2,212.00
4th Year
$1,580.00
$9,480.00
$553.00
$2,133.00
5th Year
$1,580.00
$7,900.00
$474.00
$2,054.00
6th Year
$1,580.00
$6,320.00
$395.00
$1,975.00
7th Year
$1,580.00
$4,740.00
$316.00
$1,896.00
8th Year
$1,580.00
$3,160.00
$237.00
$1,817.00
9th Year
$1,580.00
$1,580.00
$158.00
$1,738.00
10th Year
$1,580.00
$
$79.00
$1,659.00
TOTALS
$15,800.00
$3,555.00
$19,355.00
-
August 29, 2014
Page 7
Average payment per year = $1,935.50
Note that the billing cycle may begin before the project is completed. There will be no refunds
on interest paid by any property owner if this occurs.
FUTURE PROJECTS
Two additional special assessment districts that will likely be forthcoming for sidewalk
replacements in conjunction with upcoming paving projects planned in the near future:
1. Hamilton Ave. Reconstruction (2016) estimated at $150 per front foot.
2. Maple Rd. Reconstruction (2017) estimated at $120 per front foot.
These projects will impact most of the property owners that also have frontage on the S.
Hamilton Alley.
VII. DISCLAIMER
The information provided in this report was based upon facts at the time written to the best of the
Engineering Department's knowledge. The City of Birmingham reserves the right to change the
policies and procedures noted herein without notice based upon changing conditions that may be
appropriate in the future. If you have knowledge that any of the information contained in this
report is incorrect, please contact the City of Birmingham Engineering Department as soon as
possible to notify them of any inaccuracies.
MEMORANDUM
Engineering Department
DATE:
September 12, 2014
TO:
Joseph A. Valentine, City Manager
FROM:
Brendan Cousino, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT:
Hamilton Alley Reconstruction
SAD Public Hearing of Necessity
During the budget hearing for the FY 2014/2015 City budget, the City Commission asked the
Engineering Department to consider reconstructing the alley that runs between Hamilton Ave.
and E. Maple Rd. The alley is generally an 18 ft. wide strip of land, although it widens out at
the 90° bend located south of the Hamilton Ave. entrance.
Our records indicate that the alley was first paved in 1929, the same year that a combined
sewer was installed. The existing pavement is in poor condition. There are some areas that
have been patched in the past, but the majority of the alley still has the original pavement in
place. The sewer has not been studied, but we expect that it is not adequate to drain the area
as it should, and we believe that it likely needs to be enlarged.
Pursuant to the City Commission’s direction, an informational booklet was prepared to inform
the property owners and tenants about the proposed project, and a meeting was held on
September 11, 2014 at City Hall to allow them to meet with Engineering Dept. staff to discuss
the project prior to the public hearing. In general, the comments from the people who
attended the meeting were:
1. Concerns about the cost, and the duration of the project. Those present noted that the
alley is in poor condition, but they felt that the alley needs to remain as a service alley
and that the exposed aggregate concrete accents were unnecessary. They were
concerned that the alley is very important to those businesses and residents that have
frontage on it, and taking it out of service for 2 to 3 months would be a hardship.
2. This alley is a service alley, which has several dumpsters, grease traps, unsightly wires,
and access to parking spaces. Those present noted that they did not think this was a
good alley to try to turn into a pedestrian environment because of the necessary service
nature of the alley, and the high amount of traffic from deliveries, trash collection, and
those that access parking areas.
3. Those present generally noted support for the reconstruction of the sewers, and
improving the drainage in the alley. There are areas where the existing surface drainage
of the alley can overflow into some basement or ground floor parking areas if it rains
particularly hard.
4. There were several concerns noted about logistics for deliveries, trash collection, and
parking that will be disrupted during the construction. Engineering Dept. staff discussed
some options for setting up temporary trash collection areas on the street at either end
1
of the alley, as well as setting aside some on-street parking spaces as a delivery area so
that there is a way for the businesses to continue to operate throughout the project.
These details can be finalized if this project proceeds.
A copy of the informational booklet and the meeting sign-in sheet are attached for your
reference. During the meeting, some of the attendees noted that they planned to submit letters
to the City Commission to present their thoughts on this project. At the time of this report, only
one letter has been received by the Engineering Dept., which is attached to this report.
Complete reconstruction of an alley is typically funded by special assessment. The City
Commission can authorize a special assessment district after taking input from the property
owners, if it declares the project a necessity. The most recent similar project is from 2005,
when the “Willits Alley” was reconstructed from the southeast corner of the Willits Building,
south to Maple Rd. The project was initiated by the City Commission and special assessed
against the adjacent properties at 100% of the cost.
The estimated cost of the job is approximately $290,000 for the new concrete pavement with a
decorative combination of plain broom-finished concrete and exposed aggregate concrete
accents (not including sewer improvements). This results in an estimated assessment of
approximately $300 per linear foot of alley frontage for the adjacent property owners. If
necessity is declared on this project, the Engineering Dept. will proceed with a study of the
sewers in the alley to determine if there are structural or capacity deficiencies that need to be
addressed during the alley reconstruction. If the sewers do need to be replaced, the costs of
that work will be charged to the City Sewer Fund, not to the adjacent property owners.
Finally, if the project is approved, a separate special assessment district for the replacement of
sewer laterals within the alley will also be recommended, at a later date.
A suggested resolution has been prepared below should the Commission wish to determine
necessity of the improvements, and authorize this project.
Suggested Resolution:
WHEREAS,
The City Commission is of the opinion that construction of the improvement
herein is declared a necessity; and
WHEREAS,
The City Commission has not declared it practicable to cause estimates of cost
thereof and plans to be made at this time, now therefore be it,
RESOLVED,
that there be constructed an improvement to be hereinafter known as:
HAMILTON ALLEY – HAMILTON AVE. TO PARK ST.
consisting of the construction of an 18 foot wide concrete pavement with a decorative
combination of plain broom-finished concrete and exposed aggregate concrete accents, be it
further
2
RESOLVED, that at such time as the Assessor is directed to prepare the assessment roll, one
hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost be levied against the assessment district, be it
further
RESOLVED, that there be a special assessment district created and special assessments
levied in accordance with benefits against the properties within such assessment district, said
special assessment district shall be all properties, both public and private, within the following
district:
Lot 8, except for that portion taken for Park Street Right of Way, Lots 10 through 28
inclusive, Lot 29 except for that portion taken for alley purposes, Lots 30 through 37
inclusive, Lot 38, except for that portion taken for Park Street Right-of-Way, of
“Assessor’s Plat No. 21”, being part of the S.E. ¼ of the S.W. ¼ and the S.W. ¼ of the
S.E. ¼of Section 25, T. 2 N., R. 10. E., City of Birmingham, Oakland County, Michigan
be it further
RESOLVED, that the Commission shall meet on Monday, October 13, 2014, at 7:30 P.M., for the
purpose of conducting a public hearing to confirm the roll for the paving of the Hamilton Alley
from Hamilton Ave. to Park St.
3
e
<
!
(
<
!
HAMILTON ALLEY
RECONSTRUCTION
(
(
<
!
LE
DA
RN
FE
(
(
(
e
e
<
!
ST
RK
PA
<
!
ST
(
<
!
ON AVE
HAMILT(
(
(
<
(
<
(
(
<
!
(
(
(
(
e
<
!
<
<
!
<
(
(
<
!
(
<
<
!
(
(
<
!
<
!
e
<
!
<
!
W MAPLE AVE
E MAPLE AVE
(
(
e
(
<
!
S
OL
(
OO
DW
PEAB
O
<
!
e
<
!
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
<
!
<
!
<
!
E
AV
(
DY S
T
D
AR
DW
<
!
<
!
(
(
<
!
OO
DW
OL
<
N
(
(
e
D
AR
DW
(
(
<
!
<
!
(
E
AV
(
I
0
30
Feet
120
60
(
<
!
<
!
(
(
<
!
BIRMINGHAM CITY COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 22, 2014
MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 151 MARTIN
7:30 P.M.
I.
CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Scott D. Moore, Mayor, called the meeting to order at 7:31 PM.
II.
ROLL CALL
ROLL CALL: Present,
Absent,
Mayor Moore
Commissioner Dilgard
Commissioner Hoff
Commissioner McDaniel
Commissioner Nickita
Commissioner Rinschler
Mayor Pro Tem Sherman
None
Administration: City Manager Valentine, City Attorney Currier, Clerk Pierce, Police Chief Studt,
DPS Director Wood, City Engineer O’Meara, City Planner Ecker
III.
PROCLAMATIONS, CONGRATULATORY RESOLUTIONS, AWARDS, APPOINTMENTS,
RESIGNATIONS AND CONFIRMATIONS, ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS, INTRODUCTION
OF GUESTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
IV.
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed on the consent agenda are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one
motion and approved by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of the items unless a
commissioner or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the general order
of business and considered under the last item of new business.
09-224-14
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
The following items were removed from the consent agenda:
 Item F (Freight Elevator at the Library) by Commissioner Hoff
 Item H (Tennis Facility Lease) by Dorothy Conrad
Motion by Sherman, seconded by McDaniel:
MOTION:
To approve the consent agenda as follows:
A.
Approval of City Commission meeting minutes of September 8, 2014.
B.
Approval of warrant list, including Automated Clearing House payments, of September
10, 2014 in the amount of $2,805,529.45.
C.
Approval of warrant list, including Automated Clearing House payments, of September
17, 2014 in the amount of $23,859,059.84.
D.
Resolution approving the purchase of (23) Fluidmesh wireless radios in the amount of
$45,710 from Abel Electronics; further authorizing this expenditure from account
number #265-302.001-971.0100, and further approving the appropriation and
amendment to the 2014-15 Law and Drug Enforcement budget as follows:
September 22, 2014 1 4B
E.
G.
Law & Drug Enforcement Fund
Revenues:
Draw from Fund Balance
$45,710
(Account #265-000.000-400.0000)
$45,710
Total Revenues
Expenditures:
$45,710
Machinery and Equipment
(Account #265-302.001-971.0100)
$45,710
Total Expenditures
Resolution setting a public hearing for October 13, 2014 to consider the Final Site Plan &
Design and a Special Land Use Permit at 33588 Woodward to allow the operation of a
Shell gasoline station with a convenience store and a Dunkin Donuts store on site.
Resolution approving the purchase of the Henderson BrineXtreme from Knapheide Truck
Equipment Company for a total expenditure of not to exceed $92,625.00. Funds for this
purchase are available in the Auto Equipment Fund, account #641-441.006-971.0100.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Yeas,
Nays,
Absent,
Abstentions,
Commissioner Dilgard
Commissioner Hoff
Commissioner McDaniel
Commissioner Nickita
Commissioner Rinschler
Mayor Pro Tem Sherman
Mayor Moore
None
None
None
The Commission agreed to consider Item H, Tennis Facility Lease, at this time.
09-225-14
TENNIS FACILITY LEASE AMENDMENT
Dorothy Conrad questioned whether the plans for Kenning Park were considered in the
contract. Mr. Valentine confirmed that the Kenning Park master plan does not include any
changes to this site. He explained the termination provisions included in the contract.
MOTION:
Motion by Rinschler, seconded by Hoff:
To approve the amended and restated Tennis Facility Lease Dated May 11, 1998 incorporating
prior amendments and amending the insurance provisions to clarify the full property insurance
obligations by the racquet club. Further, directing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the
agreement on behalf of the City.
VOTE:
V.
Yeas, 7
Nays, None
Absent, None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
09-226-14
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING OF NECESSITY
HAMILTON ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION
Mayor Moore opened the continuation of the Public Hearing of Necessity for the Hamilton Alley
Reconstruction at 7:38PM.
2 September 22, 2014 City Engineer O’Meara explained that the Commission requested staff to look at the feasibility of
reconstructing the pavement in the Hamilton Alley. The pavement would be modeled after the
Willits Alley pavement with the sawcut concrete pattern and exposed aggregate strips. He
explained that there were concerns from the property owners with the dumpsters and the
quality of the job.
Mr. O’Meara confirmed for Commissioner Hoff that the estimated cost of the project would be
assessed. He noted that it is anticipated that sewer improvements will be needed, which would
be paid for out of the sewer fund.
Mr. O’Meara confirmed for Commissioner McDaniel that if brushed concrete was used, it would
be approximately 60% of the cost. Commissioner McDaniel noted that it is primarily a service
alley and if the cost can be cut, it should be seriously considered.
Commissioner Dilgard noted that at a minimum, the number of storm drains should be
increased.
Melvin Kaftan, East Maple, expressed concern with the impact on trash pick-up and length of
the project as sewer work would add time to the project.
Tim Holmes, 400 Hamilton, commented on the flooding in the alley. He noted that it is a
service alley and expressed his objection with the location of the dumpsters in the alley across
from his building.
Anthony Garth, 300 Hamilton Common Wealth Café, pointed out that it is not a walking alley.
He suggested postponing this project for further research.
John Melstrom, 400 Hamilton, expressed support of the project. He noted it is a service alley
and commented that he is unable to get to his parking due to the congestion in the alley. He
stated that the enforcement of the dumpsters needs to be addressed. Mr. Valentine confirmed
for Commissioner Hoff that Code Enforcement should be contacted if there is an issue with the
dumpsters.
Commissioner Nickita commented that there is a need to have more than a functional alley and
noted there is opportunity for further exploration of the alley.
Mayor Pro Tem Sherman noted that there are two different types of alleys and they should not
be treated the same. He commented that the sewers and dumpster issue should be addressed.
He noted that this may not be the best timing for this project.
Jim Nash, 300 Hamilton, Common Wealth Café, noted that it is a narrow alley and impossible to
keep the dumpster area completely clean as they are filled and dumped daily. He expressed
that he would be willing to donate his time to look into this further.
City Planner Ecker confirmed for Commissioner Nickita that any alley design project is required
to go before the Planning Board where these issues would be vetted.
The Mayor closed the Public Hearing at 8:27 PM.
3 September 22, 2014 The Commission discussed the available options and timeframe of the project.
MOTION:
Motion by McDaniel, seconded by Rinschler:
To declare necessity for the Hamilton Alley reconstruction.
In response to a question from Commissioner Hoff, Ms. Ecker confirmed that the Planning
Board would discuss other factors such as crosswalks in addition to sewer and pavement.
The Commission agreed to withdraw the motion. MOTION WITHDRAWN
MOTION:
Motion by McDaniel, seconded by Dilgard:
That the City Commission understands and believes that the Hamilton alley is in immediate
need of design and infrastructure improvements to be done within the next calendar year and
directing the Planning Board and Administration to review this project and return to City
Commission with recommendations.
Commissioner Nickita suggested the Architectural Review Committee review the alley plan in
addition to the Planning Board.
Mr. Valentine confirmed for Commissioner McDaniel that there has been sufficient direction to
investigate the sewer.
VOTE:
VI.
Yeas, 7
Nays, None
Absent, None
NEW BUSINESS
09-227-14
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF
HAZEL ST. FROM WOODWARD AVE. TO ELM ST.
Mayor Moore opened the Public Hearing to consider the vacation of Hazel St. from Woodward
Ave. to Elm St. at 8:53 PM.
City Engineer O’Meara explained that the street was vacated two years ago in accordance with
the master plan for the triangle district. The property owner is willing to expend the funds for
the underground utility work so the right-of-way can be vacated without a public utility over it.
Mr. O’Meara pointed out the concern from a resident regarding a screen wall. Mr. O’Meara
confirmed that there was no obligation on the property owner to change the screen wall.
Fred Lavery, 444 Lakepark and owner of the affected properties, explained that the only issue
has been getting the utility issues solved and hopes to have the project done before the
building season ends this year. He noted that if the Triangle District Plan is fully implemented,
these properties will be redeveloped and the pedestrian easement would have to be dealt with
in a different way.
The Mayor closed the Public Hearing at 9:01PM.
MOTION:
Motion by Rinschler, seconded by Nickita:
4 September 22, 2014 To authorize the vacation of Hazel St., from Woodward Ave. to Elm St., contingent upon an
easement for pedestrian ingress/egress being retained over the northerly six feet and the
southerly six feet of said right-of-way, and subject to the site plan as submitted by the
adjoining property owner, Greentree Investment Co.
VOTE:
Yeas, 7
Nays, None
Absent, None
09-228-14
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING CONSULTANT
FOR THE MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD
City Engineer O’Meara explained with the creation of the Multi-Modal Transportation Board, it
was an appropriate time to look at a transportation engineer to take on the new multi-modal
concepts. He explained that the Board concluded that both firms were qualified; however Fleis
& Vandenbrink has had more history with the City through Mike Labadie who will be a good
resource.
In response to a question from Commissioner Hoff, Mr. O’Meara confirmed that the anticipated
funds to be spent annually is more than previous as there will be more involved than what the
Traffic and Safety Board had needed from the consultant.
Commissioner Nickita expressed his discomfort with the discrepancy between the scores and
the final decision on the consultant. Mayor Pro Tem Sherman agreed that the decision is
inconsistent with the scores.
Commissioner Hoff expressed concern with the number of members on the board as not every
position is filled and the board is having trouble meeting quorum. Mayor Moore suggested staff
review the membership requirements.
MOTION:
Motion by Rinschler, seconded by McDaniel:
To approve the agreement between the City of Birmingham and Fleis & Vandenbrink to act as
the City’s Transportation Engineering Consultant to the Multi-Modal Transportation Board, for a
period of two years, with a one year renewal option.
City Planner Ecker confirmed that the Board was divided in the decision on an engineer. Mr.
Labadie’s involvement and history with the City seemed to be the tipping point for the decision.
Dorothy Conrad expressed disappointment with the final decision on the engineer.
VOTE:
Yeas, 5
Nays, 2 (Nickita, Sherman)
Absent, None
09-229-14
2014 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
CHANGE ORDER #1
City Engineer O’Meara explained the asphalt deterioration on Stanley and noted the contractor
has agreed to do the work at the current contract prices. He confirmed for Commissioner
McDaniel that the City would receive a one year warranty on the work.
5 September 22, 2014 MOTION:
Motion by McDaniel, seconded by Sherman:
To authorize Change Order #1 to the 2014 Pavement Maintenance Program (Contract #814(P)), which will address premature asphalt surface deterioration on the northbound lane of
Stanley Blvd. between Lincoln Ave. and 14 Mile Rd., at an estimated cost of $16,430. Further,
to approve the 2014-2015 appropriations and budget amendment as follows:
Revenues:
(Account #203-000.000-400.0000)
$16,430
Total Revenue Adjustments
$16,430
Expenditures:
Local Streets Fund Capital Improvements
(Account #203-449.001-981.0100)
$16,430
Total Expenditure Adjustments
$16,430
VOTE:
Yeas, 7
Nays, None
Absent, None
09-230-14
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – CHAPTER 118
GRASS AND NOXIOUS WEEDS
Mayor Moore explained that the amendment will bring the ordinance consistent with State law.
MOTION:
Motion by Sherman, seconded by Hoff:
To adopt an ordinance amending Part II of the City Code, Chapter 118, Vegetation, Article IX.
Grass and Noxious Weeds, Section 118-68. Work Done at Owners' Expense to reflect the
deletion of the hearing officer provision and the addition of the civil appearance before a District
Court Judge so that Section 118-68 and section 118-69 are consistent with each other.
VOTE:
VII.
Yeas, 7
Nays, None
Absent, None
REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
09-231-14
BALDWIN PUBLIC LIBRARY
FREIGHT ELEVATOR
In response to a question from Commissioner Hoff, Mr. Valentine explained that the funds are
to develop bid specifications in order to design the technical components for the parts
necessary to repair the freight elevator.
MOTION:
Motion by Hoff, seconded by McDaniel:
To approve the professional service agreement, for the freight elevator at the Baldwin Public
Library, with National Elevator Consultants, Inc. to perform items B through E in the their
proposal of July 26, 2014 in an amount not to exceed $10,600 and to direct the Mayor and City
Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the City and further; to approve the appropriation and
amendment to the fiscal year 2014-2015 budget as follows:
General Fund
Revenue:
(Account #101-000.000-400.0000)
$10,600
6 September 22, 2014 Total Revenue Adjustment
Expenditure:
City Property Maintenance-Library
(Account #101-265.002-971.0100)
Total Expenditure Adjustment
VOTE:
$10,600
$10,600
$10,600
Yeas, 7
Nays, None
Absent, None
VIII. COMMUNICATIONS
09-232-14
COMMUNICATIONS
The Commission received a letter from Stuart and Hilary Borman, 811 Shirley, regarding West
Maple.
The Commission received the informational news release from the Great Lakes Water Authority.
IX.
X.
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
REPORTS
09-233-14
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Mr. O’Meara presented an update on the Lincoln construction schedule as requested by
Commissioner Nickita. Mr. Valentine confirmed that the issue is with the subcontractors used
by the contractor.
Mr. Valentine confirmed for Commissioner Hoff that recommendations regarding the cemetery
will be brought to the Commission within the next few meetings.
The Commission briefly discussed the Great Lakes Water Authority.
XI.
ADJOURN
The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 9:46 PM.
Laura M. Pierce
City Clerk
7 September 22, 2014 N
MAPLE RD.
HAMILTON ALLEY
OVERALL ALLEY DESIGN
N
MAPLE RD.
PROPOSED LOCATION OF STREET
LIGHTS FOR VIA SIGNS
HAMILTON ALLEY
EXISTING STREET LIGHTS TO HAVE VIA SIGNS
PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF VIA SIGNAGE
N
MAPLE RD.
DUMPSTER SCREEN LOCATIONS
HAMILTON ALLEY
PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF
DUMPSTER SCREENS
EXPOSED AGGREGATE CONCRETE
BROOM FINISHED CONCRETE
HAMILTON ALLEY
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
WAYFINDING SIGNAGE
HAMILTON ALLEY
WAYFINDING SIGNAGE
DRAIN
EXPOSED AGGREGATE CONC.
BROOM FINISHED CONC.
HAMILTON ALLEY
CURVE DESIGN
METAL LOUVER
PANELS
SOLID METAL
BASE / FRAME
HAMILTON ALLEY
DUMPSTER SCREEN OPTION A
HAMILTON ALLEY
DUMPSTER SCREEN OPTION A (SMALL)
METAL LOUVER
PANELS
SOLID METAL
BASE / FRAME
HAMILTON ALLEY
DUMPSTER SCREEN OPTION B
DRAFT – NOT APPROVED
Architectural Review Committee
City Hall Conference Room 202
151 Martin St.
248.530.1880
Friday, October 3, 2014
Meeting called to order at 8:30 am.
Present: Larry Bertollini, Scott Bonney, Christopher Longe
City Staff: Joe Valentine, City Manager
Paul O’Meara, City Engineer
Jana Ecker, City Planner
Amanda Thomas, Management Analyst
Approval of the meeting notes from June 30, 2014.
Motion by Longe, seconded by Bonney.
3 yeas, 0 nays.
On-site visit to Hamilton Alley canceled due to rain.
Mr. Valentine, Mr. O’Meara and Ms. Ecker briefly introduced the Hamilton Alley proposed
improvement project and the issues that the City is facing in regards to property and business
owners.
The committee reviewed and discussed the current alley plans.
Mr. Longe left the meeting at 9:04 am.
Following the discussion, Mr. Bonney motioned for the committee to make the following
recommendations for further consideration:
Alley Pavement Design Consider Social and Commonwealth alleys in the design of the alley plan. Use
aggregate walkways to connect these two alleys, but minimize aggregate throughout the
parts of the alley not used by pedestrians.
Dumpster Locations Add panels to existed dumpster sites at locations on public property. Consider adding
landscaping to the sides of panels where the dumpsters sit.
Enhance the existing conditionsImprove lighting in walkways, while also enhancing and drawing attention to focal points.
Add art elements at terminating vistas and overhead buildings, and add vista signs with
street names.
Motion by Bonney, seconded by Bertollini.
2 yeas, 0 nays.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:58 am.
Manager’s Directives Resulting from Architectural Review Committee Meeting of
October 3, 2014:
1. To direct the Engineering Department to proceed with the design, incorporating the
concepts as discussed by the Architectural Review Committee, including:
Alley Pavement Design Consider Social and Commonwealth alleys in the design of the alley plan. Use
aggregate walkways to connect these two alleys, but minimize aggregate throughout the
parts of the alley not used by pedestrians.
Dumpster Locations Add panels to existed dumpster sites at locations on public property. Consider adding
landscaping to the sides of panels where the dumpsters sit.
Enhance the existing conditionsImprove lighting in walkways, while also enhancing and drawing attention to focal points.
Add art elements at terminating vistas and overhead buildings, and add vista signs with
street names.
MEMORANDUM
Community Development
DATE:
October 14, 2014
TO:
Planning Board members
FROM:
Matthew Baka – Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
2200 Holland Street – Mercedes Benz of Bloomfield Hills Auto
—Preliminary Site Plan Review & SLUP (Postponed from 9.10.14)
Executive Summary
The subject property located at 2200 Holland currently contains 5 warehouse structures
of various sizes. The applicant proposes to demolish all off the existing buildings and
construct a single warehouse building that will be 16,400 sq. ft. and will be used as the
auto prep and storage facility for the Mercedes-Benz of Bloomfield Hills dealership.
The facility will be used to store and prepare cars for sale. The proposed building will
have the capacity to store 100 cars. All buildings over 6,000 sq. ft. in the MX district are
required to obtain a Special Land Use Permit. Accordingly, the Planning Board will
perform the preliminary and final site plan reviews for the project and then make a
recommendation to the City Commission on whether or not to approve the proposal for
a SLUP.
The applicant appeared before the Planning Board on September 10th, 2014. The night
of the meeting the applicant presented an alternate plan that incorporated one of the
existing buildings into the redevelopment plan. Due to the significant changes made to
the proposal, the preliminary site plan review was postponed so that the Planning
Department could perform a full review of the new plan and to allow the applicant to
incorporate the comments provided by the Planning Board. The Plan that was
resubmitted closely resembles the original submittal.
However, several of the
comments of the Planning Board were incorporated, including the following;
• The building was shifted to the south to allow for the future possibility of
extending Holland street as recommended in the Eton Road Corridor Plan
(ERCP);
• The on-site parking was increased to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements;
• The retention area in the southeast corner of the site was replaced with trees
and landscaping; and
• Signage was added to the east and west facades of the building.
SLUP & Preliminary Site Plan Review
2200 Holland – Mercedes-Benz of Bloomfield Hills
October 22, 2014
Page 2 of 12
The meeting minutes from the September 10th, 2014 Planning Board meeting are
attached for your review. This report has been revised to reflect the current proposal.
1.0
Land Use and Zoning
1.1
Existing Land Use – The existing space is currently vacant. The lot
consists of five existing warehouse buildings.
1.2
Zoning – The property is currently zoned MX, Mixed Use and is
located in the Rail District. The existing use and surrounding uses
appear to conform to the permitted uses of each Zoning District.
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.
North
South
East
West
Existing
Land Use
Public School Commercial
property
Commercial /
Industrial
Commercial/
Industrial
Existing
Zoning
District
MX
Mixed-Use
MX
Mixed-Use
PP
Public
Property
MX
Mixed-Use
A map of the area showing the subject property highlighted in red and showing the
surrounding properties is attached for your review.
2.0
Setback and Height Requirements
The proposed building appears to meets the setback and height restrictions of the MX
zone with the exception of the following, Article 04 section 4.76 SS-08 A(1) states that
Front building facades at the first story shall be located at the frontage line.
Accordingly, the applicant will be required to obtain a variance from the Board of
Zoning Appeals for the placement of the building off of the frontage line.
Screening and Landscaping
H:\Shared\CDD\Planning Board\Planning Board Agendas\2014\October 22, 2014\4 - 2200 Holland
PSP 10.22.14.doc
October 22, 2014
Page 3 of 12
3.1 Dumpster Screening – The revised plan does not include a dumpster. If a
dumpster is added at a later date then it must be screened in accordance
with the Zoning Ordinance.
3.2 Parking Lot Screening – The parking area does not abut a street, alley or
passage. Therefore, screening of the parking area is not required.
3.3 Mechanical Equipment Screening – The plans as submitted do not include
any mechanical equipment. Any mechanical equipment located on site must
be screened in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
3.4 Landscaping –The applicant has proposed a total of 20 trees, 12 Spirea, 5
Japanese Yews and a large area of ornamental grass. The landscaping is
proposed to be located in three areas. The five (5) yews and one (1)
Sunburst Locust are proposed to be located on the west side of the entry
gate, six (6) Bradford pear trees and 12 Spirea are proposed to be located at
the front elevation of the new building and the remaining 13 Sunburst locust
are proposed to be arranged in the south east corner of the parcel with a
large grouping of ornamental grasses.
Article 4, section 4.20 LA-01 (F) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that
parking lots shall have landscaping areas that total no less than 5% of the
total parking lot interior, each interior planting area shall be at least 150
square feet and not less than 8 feet bin any single dimension, there shall be
at least on canopy tree for each 150 square feet and the interior planting
areas be located in a manner that breaks up the expanse of paving
throughout the parking lot interior.
The plans submitted by the applicant indicate the proposed parking area will
be 57,970 sq. ft. in size. Accordingly, the applicant is required to provide
2,898 sq. ft. of landscaping in a manner consistent with ordinance
requirements referenced above. The plans indicate that 2,940 sq. ft. of
landscaping will be provided. However, the majority of the landscaping is
clustered in the southeast corner of the parcel outside of the parking area
which does not count toward the interior landscaping requirement.
Therefore, the applicant will be required to add additional landscaping
in the parking lot that meets Article 4, section 4.20 LA-01 (F) or obtain a
variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
4.0
Parking, Loading and Circulation
4.1
Parking – In accordance with Article 4, section 4.34 of the Zoning
Ordinance, this development is required to have 1 parking space for every
500 square feet of building space. This makes a requirement of 16,400
sq. ft. / 500 = 33 parking spaces. The applicant has provided 44 parking
PSP 10.22.14.doc
October 22, 2014
Page 4 of 12
spaces including one handicap accessible space.
applicant’s proposal meets the parking requirement.
5.0
Accordingly, the
4.2
Loading – The applicant has proposed to have a 12’ X 50’ loading area on
the north face of the building. The loading space meets the requirements
of Article 04 section 4.24 (C).
4.3
Vehicular Circulation and Access –The applicant proposes to put a
security gate at the northwest corner of the lot that will allow ingress and
egress to the site. The layout of the lot and parking area will provide twoway circulation around the proposed building allowing access to the roll-up
garage doors on the sides and rear of the building as well as access to
the parking places.
4.4
Pedestrian Circulation and Access – The applicant has proposed a 5’
wide concrete sidewalk along the front of the building to allow for
pedestrian access from the parking spaces. There is currently no
pedestrian access from Holland.
Lighting
The current proposal does not indicate any building or parking lot lighting. The
applicant has added one light at the entrance to the site as requested by the
Engineering Department. The proposed light will be required to match the Rail
District standard pedestrian scale light.
Any additional building or site lighting must be provided at Final Site Plan
review along with a photo-metric plan indicating light levels that are in
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance standards.
6.0
Departmental Reports
6.1
Engineering Division – The Engineering Dept. has reviewed the plans
dated October 13, 2014. The following comments are offered at this time:
1. The current plan does not have any design relative to any underground
utilities. Note that the only access the site has to both public water main and
combined sewer is at the street connection (the east end of Holland Ave.).
Underground drainage accommodating the entire site, as well as a new
sanitary service and water service will be required as a part of the building
permit for this proposal.
2.
All new commercial development is generally required to install City street
lights matching the standard now being used for the Rail District. Due to
the limited road frontage of this site, it is suggested that one street light be
required on the Holland Ave. right-of-way, on the south side, near the
PSP 10.22.14.doc
October 22, 2014
Page 5 of 12
proposed entrance gate. The light should be shown on the plans, to be
installed by DTE Energy. Once it is confirmed that the project will be built,
the City will ask for a proposal from DTE Energy. The applicant will be
responsible for the cost of this light prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
Permits required for this project from our office shall be:
•
•
Right-of-way permit (for water and sewer connections).
Drive approach permit (for flatwork in the right-of-way).
6.2
Department of Public Services – DPS had no comments.
6.3
Fire Department –
1. A Knox Box is required. Access through security gate shall be
provided. F-506.1
2. A Fire Suppression system is required. F-903.2
6.4
Police Department – The Police Department had no comments.
6.5
Building Division – In addition to their standard comments the Building
Department listed the following issues that must be addressed;
Additional Comments:
1. Two exits doors required
2. Two barrier free parking spaces required
3. Fire sprinkler system required
7.0
Design Review
A detailed design review will be done at Final Site Plan Review. At this time the
applicant has provided elevation drawings that show the following materials;
• Split face CMU on the front (east elevation);
• Six (6) 4 x 8 windows on the front elevation;
• Metal paneling on the sides and rear of the building and the upper portion
of the front;
• Translucent panels on the upper portion of the front and side elevations;
• Metal roof;
• Roll-up garage doors on the side and rear elevations.
In addition, this parcel is subject to the window requirements of Article 04 section
4.83 WN-01, which requires 70% glazing on any façade that faces a street,
plaza, park or parking area. The plans as submitted do not meet this
requirement. The applicant will be required to provide 70% glazing on the
first floor or obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
PSP 10.22.14.doc
October 22, 2014
Page 6 of 12
8.0
Eton Road Corridor Plan (ERCP)
The subject site is located within the boundaries of the Eton Road Corridor Plan.
The vision of the Eton Road Corridor Plan (“ERCP”) was to encourage a mixed
use corridor with a range of commercial, service, light industrial and residential
uses that serve the needs of the residents of Birmingham. Creative site planning
is encouraged to promote high quality, cohesive development that is compatible
with the existing uses in the corridor and the adjacent single-family residential
neighborhoods. The ERCP provides a land use rejection matrix to evaluate
potential land uses within the district. On a scale of 0 – 11 the category of
Office/Warehouse scored a total of 7 positive considerations.
Sub-Area Plan
The Eton Road Sub-Area Plan (map #9) identifies recommended building
locations, street locations, and other features and concepts that should be
considered during the review of proposed developments in the corridor. The
subject site was identified as a potential location for an extension of Holland Rd.
that would connect to a future road/linear park that would run parallel to the rail
road tracks. The applicant has moved the proposed building to the south
31’ from the north property line to allow for the potential future extension of
Holland Rd.
Design
Chapter 5 of the ERCP details specific site and building design guidelines,
including the use of high quality materials, the creation of a pedestrian friendly
environment with entrances facing the street, street trees and streetscape
elements, continuous sidewalks, and effective screening of parking and loading
areas. The subject site is in an isolated section of the Rail District that does not
currently have pedestrian access. The applicant is not proposing any
pedestrian improvements at this time as their proposed use is not intended
to allow the general public access to the site. At this time, the applicant
has provided limited details on the design and materials proposed for the
building. A detailed design review will be provided at final site plan review.
8.0
Approval Criteria
In accordance with Article 7, section 7.27 of the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed
plans for development must meet the following conditions:
(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.
that there will be no interference with adequate light, air and access to
adjacent lands and buildings.
PSP 10.22.14.doc
October 22, 2014
Page 7 of 12
that they will not hinder the reasonable development of adjoining property
not diminish the value thereof.
(4) The site plan, and its relation to streets, driveways and sidewalks, shall be
such as to not interfere with or be hazardous to vehicular and pedestrian
traffic.
(5) The proposed development will be compatible with other uses and buildings
in the neighborhood and will not be contrary to the spirit and purpose of this
chapter.
(6) The location, shape and size of required landscaped open space is such as
to provide adequate open space for the benefit of the inhabitants of the
building and the surrounding neighborhood.
9.0
Approval Criteria for Special Land Use Permits
Article 07, section 7.34 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the procedures and
approval criteria for Special Land Use Permits. Use approval, site plan approval,
and design review are the responsibilities of the City Commission. This section
reads, in part:
Prior to its consideration of a special land use application (SLUP) for an
initial permit or an amendment to a permit, the City Commission shall
refer the site plan and the design to the Planning Board for its
review
and
recommendation.
After
receiving
the
recommendation, the City Commission shall review the site plan
and design of the buildings and uses proposed for the site described
in the application of amendment.
The City Commission’s approval of any special land use application or
amendment pursuant to this section shall constitute approval of the site
plan and design.
10.0
Recommendation
Based on a review of the site plan revisions submitted, the Planning Division
recommends that the Planning Board recommend APPROVAL of the Preliminary
Site Plan and SLUP for 2200 Holland with the following conditions;
1. The applicant must obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals
for the placement of the building off of the frontage line;
PSP 10.22.14.doc
October 22, 2014
Page 8 of 12
2. The applicant will be required to add additional landscaping in the parking
lot that meets Article 4, section 4.20 LA-01 (F) or obtain a variance from
the Board of Zoning Appeals.
3. The applicant will be required to provide 70% glazing on the first floor or
obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
11.0
Sample Motion Language
Motion to APPROVE the Preliminary Site Plan and SLUP for 2200 Holland
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant obtains a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the
placement of the building off of the frontage line;
2. The applicant will be required to add additional landscaping in the parking
lot that meets Article 4, section 4.20 LA-01 (F) or obtain a variance from
the Board of Zoning Appeals.
3. The applicant will be required to provide 70% glazing on the first floor or
obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
OR
Motion to POSTPONE the Preliminary Site Plan and SLUP for 2200 Holland.
(1)
OR
Motion to DENY the Preliminary Site Plan and SLUP for 2200 Holland.
PSP 10.22.14.doc
October 22, 2014
Page 9 of 12
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014
City Commission Room
151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan
Minutes of the regular meeting of the City of Birmingham Planning Board held
September 10, 2014. Chairman Robin Boyle convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Present:
Chairman Robin Boyle; Board Members Scott Clein, Carroll DeWeese,
Bert Koseck, Gillian Lazar, Janelle Whipple-Boyce, Bryan Williams;
Student Representative Jack Moore
Absent:
Student Representative Shelby Wilson
Administration:
Matt Baka, Senior Planner
Jana Ecker, Planning Director
Carole Salutes, Recording Secretary
09-134-14
2200 Holland St.
New construction of one-story building 16,400 sq. ft. in size for the cleaning,
detailing, light repair and storage of vehicles
Mr. Baka advised the subject property currently contains five warehouse structures of
various sizes. The applicant proposes to demolish all of the existing buildings and
construct a single warehouse building that will be 16,400 sq. ft. and will be used as the
auto prep and storage facility for the Mercedes-Benz of Bloomfield Hills dealership.
The facility will be used to store and prepare cars for sale. The proposed building will
have the capacity to store 100 cars. All buildings over 6,000 sq. ft. in the MX District are
required to obtain a SLUP. Accordingly, the Planning Board will perform the Preliminary
and Final Site Plan Reviews for the project and then make a recommendation to the
City Commission on whether or not to approve the proposal for a SLUP.
Mr. Baka advised that the proposed building appears to meet the setback and height
restrictions of the MX
Zone with the exception of the following: Article 04 section 4.76 SS-08 A(1) states that
Front building facades at the first story shall be located at the frontage line.
Accordingly, the applicant will be required to obtain a variance from the Board of
PSP 10.22.14.doc
October 22, 2014
Page 10 of 12
Zoning Appeals ("BZA") for the placement of the building off of the frontage line.
The applicant will be required to provide the required 33 total parking spaces or
obtain a variance from the BZA.
The applicant has proposed to have a 9 ft. x 75 ft. loading area on the north face of the
building. Article 04 section 4.24 C requires that loading spaces must be 12 ft. x 40 ft.
Accordingly, the applicant will be required to expand the width of the loading
space to 12 ft. or obtain a variance from the BZA.
A detailed design review will be done at Final Site Plan Review. At this time the
applicant has provided elevation drawings that show the following materials:
• Metal paneling on the east elevation of the building. Masonry veneer on the
west elevation.
• Along the bottom of the building they will use Light Grey masonry veneer.
• The top of the building will be brick tone masonry veneer.
• The south and north elevation will be predominately metal paneling.
• On both elevations there will be one side of the wall that will be made of brick
tone masonry veneer. The top section of both of these elevations will be
translucent panels and the roof will be corrugated metal.
Revised site plans were circulated by the applicant this evening.
In response to Mr. DeWeese, Mr. Baka confirmed that Holland dead ends right at the
start of this property. The 1996 Eton Rd. Corridor Plan ("ERCP") shows a conceptual
road going through that area. Mr. DeWeese thought it may be in everyone's selfinterest to set the building further south because it would be slightly in the way if the
road were extended in the future.
At Mr. Koseck's request, Mr. Baka read from the ordinance the intent of the MX District.
Ms. Ecker read the requirements that must be shown for a SLUP. Mr. Koseck observed
this site is right across the tracks from the train station and it is the first thing commuters
will see as they enter Birmingham.
Mr. Peter Stuyer from Designhaus Architects represented the owner of Bloomfield Hills
Mercedes Benz, Mr. Charles Gesquire, who is redeveloping the site. Their plans were
revised because investigation revealed the site would work fine without having to tear
down the existing one-story office building that is on the property. He thought the
proposed building should be considered as having a 100 year potential for other uses.
It cleans up the site and improves the storm water situation in the area. They have no
problem with pushing the building south "a tad bit" to make sure that Holland could
extend straight ahead.
PSP 10.22.14.doc
October 22, 2014
Page 11 of 12
In response to Chairman Boyle, Mr. Stuyer said they are still looking at the calculations
for the storm water retention area at the southern end of the property. He estimated the
property would contain 25% grass and nothing very fancy in terms of landscaping - a
very clean site.
Ms. Lazar received clarification that customers will not be visiting the site. Mr. Clein
was concerned about whether the storm water retention pond would actually work. Mr.
Stuyer said his intention is to use the entire site to engineer the storm water. He will
need to further investigate the property. Asphalt paving will surround the building so
that cars can get in an out of the building's multiple doors.
Ms. Ecker advised that landscaping will be required because the parking lot is over
7,500 sq. ft. They need to submit a landscaping plan for the area that covers not just
the required landscape for the parking area, but also their proposed treatment for the
retention pond. Further, what is seen from the street needs to be included. Ms.
Whipple-Boyce added the fence proposal will not work.
Mr. Gesquire introduced himself and listed the dealerships that he owns. They rank
among the top ten dealerships in the mid-west. Additionally they are good citizens.
Mr. Koseck said in his opinion this is a special district with a lot of good things
happening. However, there are a lot of things in the ERCP that this building does not
do. He doesn't see how it complies with the ordinance relative to this District. It is a
single-use building that brings in cars and perhaps trucks but very few people. He can't
visualize other uses happening in the future and would not support anything of this size.
It comes down to why buildings in the MX District were limited to 6,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Clein shared a lot of those concerns. The applicant should ask himself what he can
do to augment the design to make it fit other portions of the ordinance when the
individual use itself does not. There are many more details that need to be hammered
out. The applicant needs to take a look at what the intent of that district is and
determine how they can get as close to it with other things as possible.
Mr. Williams said the board should recognize that Holland is different than every other
street in the area. It is a lot uglier. Secondly, he doesn't share the concern about
access to the trains. He recommended that board members walk the site. Ms.
Whipple-Boyce agreed. She doesn't see anything but an operation like this moving into
that space. Also, she thought this review should be postponed because it is very
difficult for board members to get new information the night of a hearing and be
expected to make any sort of decision.
Chairman Boyle thought the intent of the ERCP was to create an interesting space at
the back end of the City. The board would very much like to see this as an opportunity
to better connect this end of the Eton Rd. Corridor, which means setting the building in
a location that would allow Holland to go all the way through. Secondly, the ERCP
PSP 10.22.14.doc
October 22, 2014
Page 12 of 12
talked about getting some pedestrian access or even a bike path down the eastern site.
That could be included as part of the retention area. Also, as people are crossing over
the railroad bridge it would be great for them to see a nice Mercedes Benz sign and
even a car. So, his suggestion is to give the site some color, some shine, and a little bit
of advertising. That would bring their story to the back end of Birmingham. Mr. Koseck
agreed that the building should reflect their brand.
There were no comments from members of the public at 8:30 p.m.
Seconded by Ms. Whipple-Boyce to postpone the SLUP and Preliminary Site Plan
Review for 2200 Holland St., Mercedes-Benz of Bloomfield Hills Prep and Storage
Facility, to the October 8 Planning Board meeting.
Chairman Boyle noted that context is important, so the plans should include
surrounding buildings and what happens, along with the passageways.
There were no comments on the motion from the public.
ROLLCALL VOTE
Yeas: DeWeese, Whipple-Boyce, Boyle, Clein, Koseck, Lazar, Williams
Nays: None
Absent: None
PSP 10.22.14.doc
Zoning Compliance Summary Sheet
Preliminary Site Plan Review
2200 Holland – Mercedes-Benz Warehouse
Existing Site:
Zoning:
Land Use:
MX, Mixed Use
Parking, Residential
Existing Land Use and Zoning of Adjacent Properties:
North
South
East
West
Existing
Land Use
Residential
Commercial/
Residential
Commercial /
Industrial
Commercial/In
dustrial
Existing
Zoning
District
MX
Mixed-Use
MX
Mixed-Use
MX
Mixed-Use
PP Public
Property
Land Area:
existing:
proposed:
92,810 sq.ft. or 2.13 Acres
Same as existing
Minimum Lot Area:
required:
1500 sq.ft. – 1 bedroom
N/A
proposed:
Total Lot Area Required: 16,400 sq. ft.
Total Lot Area Proposed: 92,810 sq. ft.
Minimum Floor Area:
required:
proposed:
N/A
N/A
Maximum Total
Floor Area:
required:
100% for entire lot
proposed:
17.67%
Minimum Open Space: required:
proposed:
N/A
N/A
Maximum Lot
Coverage:
required:
proposed:
N/A
N/A
Front Setback:
required:
0 ft.
proposed:
167 ft. (Holland)
Side Setbacks:
required:
proposed:
0 ft.
31’ (to North), 30’ (to South)
Rear Setback:
required:
proposed:
10’
10 ft. (to East)
Max. Bldg. Height:
permitted:
MX - 45’ for flat roofs, 50’ including mechanical
& 4 Stories
18 ft. to the eaves
proposed:
Minimum Eave Height: required:
proposed:
0’
25 ft.
First Floor Ceiling:
12 ft. minimum clearance finished floor to
finished ceiling on first floor
25 ft. unfinished floor to unfinished ceiling
required:
proposed:
Front Entry:
proposed:
Principal pedestrian entrance on frontage
line, Planning Board may adjust.
The principle entrance is on West side of the
building
Parking:
required:
proposed:
33 off-street spaces
44 off-street spaces
Loading Area:
required:
1 Loading Area 12’ x 40’
proposed:
1 12’ X 50’ Loading Area
Parking:
required:
proposed:
NA
NA
AC/Mech. units:
required:
proposed:
Screening to compliment the building
No details provided about mechanical
equipment screening
Dumpster:
required:
proposed:
6’ high capped masonry wall with gates
No dumpster proposed
Screening:
required:
City of Birmingham
Ü
Miles
00.005
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
MEMORANDUM
Community Development
DATE:
October 16, 2014
TO:
Planning Board members
FROM:
Jana L. Ecker, Planning Director
SUBJECT:
Report for Final Site Plan Review & Special Land Use Permit
820 E. Maple – All Seasons of Birmingham
Executive Summary
The subject site is located at 820 E. Maple, on the south side of Maple, on the southeast
corner of Maple and Elm. The parcel is located in the Triangle District and zoned MU-5 in
the front along Maple, and MU-3 in the rear adjacent to single family residential. The
applicant, All Seasons of Birmingham, is seeking approval of an Economic Development
Liquor License under Chapter 10, Alcoholic Liquors, of the City Code. Chapter 10 requires
that the applicant obtain a Special Land Use Permit and approval from the City Commission
to operate an establishment with an Economic Development License within the City of
Birmingham. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to obtain a recommendation from
the Planning Board on the Final Site Plan and Special Land Use Permit, and then obtain
approval from the City Commission for the Final Site Plan, Special Land Use Permit, and for
the use of an Economic Development License.
1.0
Land Use and Zoning
1.1
Existing Land Use – Construction of a four story, mixed use building is in
progress on the existing site. Previously the site contained an abandoned
funeral home and a large surface parking area. Land uses surrounding the
site are retail, commercial and single family residential to the rear.
1.2
Existing Zoning – The property is currently zoned MU-5 in the front along
Maple, and MU-3 in the rear adjacent to single family residential in the
Downtown Triangle District. The existing use and surrounding uses appear to
conform to the permitted uses of each Zoning District.
1.3
Summary of Land Use and Zoning - The following chart summarizes existing
land use and zoning adjacent to and/or in the vicinity of the subject site.
North
South
East
West
Existing
Land Use
Office/
Commercial
Office/ Single
Family
Residential
Office/
Commercial
Office
Existing
Zoning
District
O-2, Office
Commercial
MU-3 and
ASF-3
MU-3 & MU-5
MU-5
Downtown
Overlay
Zoning
Triangle
Overlay
District
D-2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MU-3 and
ASF-3
MU-3 & MU-5
MU-5
1.4
Proposed Use – The proposed independent senior living units and live/work
units within the building currently under construction are permitted in the
Triangle Overlay District. The applicant was previously approved for a full
service building, including the accessory uses such as a banking center, salon,
cleaners, restaurant, bar, and gathering spaces.
At this time, the applicant is requesting approval of a SLUP to allow the use of
an Economic Development Liquor License for the first floor food service uses,
including the restaurant dining room, café and bar area, club dining, and a
formal dining area and game room which will be in use only occasionally for
specific events. Chapter 126, Article 3, section 3.04(C)(11) Building Use,
states that:
Establishments operating with a liquor license obtained under Chapter 10,
Alcoholic Liquors, Article II, Division 3, Licenses for Economic
Development, are permitted with a valid Special Land Use Permit only on
those parcels on Woodward Avenue identified in Map 3.1.
The proposed location for the use of the Economic Development Liquor
License at 820 E. Maple Avenue is on one of the parcels identified in Map 3.1
(see attached). However, only the northern portion of the 820 E. Maple
property is located within the designated area identified in Map 3.1. The
location of the food service areas where alcohol service is proposed is located
on the southern portion of the property, which is not included in the area
identified in Map 3.1. The City Attorney has determined that the City
Commission is not authorized to issue a SLUP to All Seasons to allow
the use of the Economic Development License unless the boundaries
of Map 3.1 are altered to include the entire site, or if the proposed
food and beverage service area is moved to the northern portion of
the site along E. Maple.
2.0
3.0
4.0
Screening and Landscaping
3.1
Screening – No changes are proposed at this time.
3.2
Landscaping – No changes are proposed at this time.
Parking, Loading, Access, and Circulation
4.1
Parking – No changes are proposed at this time.
4.2
Loading – No changes are proposed at this time.
4.3
Vehicular Access & Circulation - Vehicular access to the building will not be
altered.
4.4
Pedestrian Access & Circulation – No changes are proposed at this time.
4.5
Streetscape – No changes are proposed at this time.
Lighting
No changes are proposed at this time.
5.0
Departmental Reports
6.1
Engineering Division – No concerns were reported by the Engineering
Division.
6.2
Department of Public Services – No concerns were reported from DPS.
6.3
Fire Department – The only comments provided by the Fire Dept. related to
the request for a liquor license is that the proposed seating layout in the
dining areas is acceptable.
6.4
Police Department - No concerns were reported from the Police Dept.
6.5
6.0
Building Division – No concerns were reported from the Building Division.
Design Review
No changes are proposed at this time to the exterior of the building. The Final Site
Plan and Design for the All Seasons building was approved by the Planning Board on
October 10, 2012 (see attached minutes).
7.0
Downtown Birmingham 2016 Overlay District
The site is not located within the Downtown Birmingham Overlay District.
8.0
Selection Criteria for Economic Development Licenses
As noted above, Article 3, section 3.04(C)(11) Building Use, of the Zoning Ordinance
permits the use of Economic Development Licenses in the Overlay District on certain
parcels, if approved as a SLUP by the City Commission. In determining whether to
grant approval of a SLUP for an Economic Development License, Chapter 10, section
10-62 establishes the following criteria:
Selection criteria. In addition to the usual factors and criteria used by the city
commission for liquor license requests, including those listed in section 10-42,
the commission shall consider the following non-exclusive list of criteria to assist
in the determination of whether any economic development licenses should be
approved:
a) Whether the amount of investment by the applicant in the proposed
development involves a substantial investment in the City. The City
deems mixed use, multi-story projects resulting in a 500% increase
in assessed value post-development over the pre-development
assessed value of the parcel, or a minimum investment of
$10,000,000, whichever is less, to be a substantial investment in the
City. However, special circumstances may warrant flexibility on the minimum
investment at the sole discretion of the City Commission.
b) The applicant’s demonstrated ability to finance the proposed project.
c) The applicant’s track record with the city including responding to city
and/or citizen concerns.
d) Whether the applicant has an adequate site plan to handle the proposed
liquor license activities.
e) Whether the applicant has adequate health and sanitary facilities.
f) The establishment’s location in relation to the determined interest in
development.
g) The extent that the cuisine offered by applicant is represented in the
city.
h) The percentage of proceeds from the sale of food products as
compared to the sale of alcoholic beverages.
i) Whether the applicant has outstanding obligations to the city (i.e.
property taxes paid, utilities paid, etc.).
The selection criteria provided above must be considered to provide a recommendation to
the City Commission as to whether or not to approve the operation of an Economic
Development License at All Seasons of Birmingham.
As the chart below indicates, the mixed use, four-story building that is currently under
construction has resulted in a 2468% increase in assessed value post-development over
Project and
Property Address
Pre-Development
Value (Land Only)
Investment in
New Building
Total PostDevelopment
Value (Building
and Land)
Increase in Value
Actual Dollars
State Equalized Value
$759,934
$379,970
$18,000,000
$9,000,000
$18,759,934
$9,379,970
2468%
2468%
the pre-development assessed value of the parcel, and an investment of over $18,000,000
in the City.
The development of the All Seasons qualifies as a substantial investment in the City. In
addition, the applicant has thus clearly met the requirement to clearly demonstrated an
ability to finance the project, as the four story building is nearing completion and numerous
leases have already been signed by future tenants.
The applicant has worked with the City to ensure that construction and staging have
provided minimal impact on the surrounding streets and businesses. The applicant has
been working with the City to address the issues and complaints that have arisen during
construction.
The proposed All Seasons building was designed to accommodate the proposed food and
liquor sales from the outset, and is adequate to handle such activities. According to the
plans submitted, the food service areas in which alcohol will be served include an open
dining area with 62 seats, a 5 seat bar and café area surrounding the bar with 26 seats, a
formal dining room with one large table seating 10, a game room with 16 seats and a club
dining area with 34 seats, for a total of 153 seats on the first floor. However, the
application states that 252 indoor seats are proposed. The applicant must
determine the number of seats proposed and ensure all documents provide
consistent information. Adequate health and sanitary facilities have been approved for
the food and beverage area.
The proposed location for the use of the Economic Development Liquor License at 820 E.
Maple Avenue is on one of the parcels identified in Map 3.1 (see attached). Thus, All
Seasons is proposed within the area targeted for economic development by the City
Commission, which includes parcels along Woodward Avenue and within the Triangle
District. However, as noted above, only the northern portion of the 820 E. Maple property
is located within the designated area identified in Map 3.1. The location of the food service
areas where alcohol service is proposed is located on the southern portion of the property,
which is not included in the area identified in Map 3.1. The City Attorney has
determined that the City Commission is not authorized to issue a SLUP to All
Seasons to allow the use of the Economic Development License unless the
boundaries of Map 3.1 are altered to include the entire site, or if the proposed
food and beverage service area is moved to the northern portion of the site
along E. Maple.
The applicant has stated that All Seasons is proposing to serve a varied dining and meal
service for its residents and their guests only. The applicant has advised that dining
and bar areas will not be open to the general public. No menu or information has
been provided at this time regarding the type of food or beverages to be served,
the variety of food to be offered or the times of the day it will be offered. Thus,
it is unclear whether the cuisine offered by the applicant is already represented
in the City.
The applicant has advised that the percentage of proceeds from the sale of food products
as compared to the sale of alcoholic beverages is expected to be 90% food to 10%
alcoholic beverages. The eating areas are designed to provide a “country club” lifestyle
experience for residents.
The applicant does not have any outstanding obligations to the City.
The applicant will be required to provide a signed copy of the required contract with the
City that must be fully executed upon approval of the SLUP and Economic Development
license, in addition to obtaining a liquor license from the State. The applicant has advised
that they have applied for an On Premise Redevelopment License with a Permit to allow
Sunday am and pm sales as well as a Living Quarters Permit. The name of the entity that
will hold the license, if issued, is proposed to be Hospitality of Birmingham, LLC, which is
jointly owned by Samuel Beznos and Douglas Etkin.
9.0
Approval Criteria for Final Site Plan
In accordance with Article 7, section 7.27 of the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed
plans for development must meet the following conditions:
(1) The location, size and height of the building, walls and fences shall be such that
there is adequate landscaped open space so as to provide light, air and access
to the persons occupying the structure.
there will be no interference with adequate light, air and access to adjacent
lands and buildings.
they will not hinder the reasonable development of adjoining property not
diminish the value thereof.
(4) The site plan, and its relation to streets, driveways and sidewalks, shall be such
as to not interfere with or be hazardous to vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
(5) The proposed development will be compatible with other uses and buildings in
the neighborhood and will not be contrary to the spirit and purpose of this
chapter.
(6) The location, shape and size of required landscaped open space is such as to
provide adequate open space for the benefit of the inhabitants of the building
and the surrounding neighborhood.
10.0 Approval Criteria for Special Land Use Permits
Article 07, section 7.34 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the procedures and
approval criteria for Special Land Use Permits. Use approval, site plan approval, and
design review are the responsibilities of the City Commission. This section reads, in
part:
Prior to its consideration of a special land use application (SLUP) for an initial
permit or an amendment to a permit, the City Commission shall refer the
site plan and the design to the Planning Board for its review and
recommendation. After receiving the recommendation, the City
Commission shall review the site plan and design of the buildings
and uses proposed for the site described in the application of amendment.
The City Commission’s approval of any special land use application or
amendment pursuant to this section shall constitute approval of the site plan
and design.
11.0 Suggested Action
Based on a review of the site plans submitted, the Planning Division recommends
that the Planning Board RECOMMEND DENIAL of the applicant’s request for Final
Site Plan and a SLUP to permit the use of an Economic Development License for All
Seasons at 820 E. Maple Avenue as the liquor license is proposed for use in an area
that is not authorized in accordance with Map 3.1 contained in the Zoning
Ordinance.
12.0 Sample Motion Language
Based on a review of the site plans submitted, the Planning Division recommends
that the Planning Board RECOMMEND DENIAL of the applicant’s request for Final
Site Plan and a SLUP to permit a Economic Development License for All Seasons at
820 E. Maple Avenue as the liquor license is proposed for use in an area that is not
authorized in accordance with Map 3.1 contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
OR
Motion to recommend APPROVAL of the Final Site Plan and SLUP to the City
Commission for All Seasons at 820 E. Maple with the following conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
OR
Motion to recommend POSTPONEMENT of the Final Site Plan and SLUP to the City
Commission for All Seasons at 820 E. Maple, with the following conditions:
CONTRACT FOR USE OF A LIQUOR LICENSE
(ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)
This Contract is entered into this ____ day of ___________, 2014, by and between
HOSPITALITY OF BIRMINGHAM, LLC, whose address is 820 E. Maple Avenue,
Birmingham, MI, (Licensee) and the CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, a Michigan Municipal
Corporation, whose address is 151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan 48012 (City).
R E C I T A L S:
WHEREAS, Licensee wishes to purchase a Redevelopment On Premise liquor license from
the State of Michigan for use at 820 E. Maple Avenue, Birmingham, Michigan (Property);
and
WHEREAS, Licensee represents to the City that in connection with the aforementioned
use that it will be making a capital investment in the location where the license is to be
used in a mixed use, multi-story building that will result in a 500% increase in assessed
value post-development over the pre-development assessed value of the parcel, or a
minimum investment of $10,000,000, whichever is less and,
WHEREAS, local legislative approval is required by the CITY OF BIRMINGHAM for the
use of a Redevelopment On Premise liquor license pursuant to MCLA §436.1501 of the
Michigan Liquor Control Code of 1998; and
WHEREAS, Licensee desires to enter into this Contract as an inducement to the CITY OF
BIRMINGHAM to approve the request of the aforementioned use of the liquor license;
and,
WHEREAS, the CITY OF BIRMINGHAM is relying upon this Contract in giving its
approval to the use of the on-premises licenses as described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1.
Licensee shall be permitted to use its liquor license on the Property. Any transfer of
the aforementioned license from the Property to any other location in the CITY OF
BIRMINGHAM shall require the approval of the Birmingham City Commission in accordance
with Section 10-63. In addition, any expansion of the building location at the Property shall
also require the approval of the Birmingham City Commission.
2.
Licensee further acknowledges that it must secure a special land use permit as
required by the Birmingham City Code. It is further agreed that it shall comply with all
provisions of the special land use permit, or any amendments thereto, as a condition of this
contract. Licensee further acknowledges and agrees that a violation of any provision of
the special land use permit is a violation of the terms of the contract entitling the City to
exercise any or all of the remedies provided herein.
3.
Licensee acknowledges that it may apply for entertainment, dance and additional
bar permits from the Michigan Liquor Control Commission for use only on the premises
described in its special land use permit. Licensee further agrees that it shall not apply or
seek from the Michigan Liquor Control Commission any other permit endorsements to its
liquor license whether available in the current Michigan Liquor Control Code or in future
Michigan Liquor Control Codes, or amendments thereto, without the prior approval of the
Birmingham City Commission.
4.
Licensee further agrees that it shall not seek any change in its license status/class
whether such changes are available now in the current Michigan Liquor Control Code or in
future Michigan Liquor Control Codes, or amendments thereto, without prior approval of
the Birmingham City Commission.
5.
Licensee agrees that it shall adhere to all Federal, State and Local laws currently in
effect or as subsequently amended or enacted.
6.
Licensee agrees that its failure to follow any of the provisions herein shall be
grounds for the Michigan Liquor Control Commission to suspend, revoke or not renew its
liquor license and/or for the Birmingham City Commission to revoke the special land use
permit, either of which would prohibit Licensee from operating its establishment. Licensee
agrees that in addition to the City of Birmingham’s right to seek suspension, revocation or
non-renewal of its liquor license and/or revocation of the special land use permit, the City
retains any and all rights to enforce this Contract that may be available to it in law or in
equity. Licensee further agrees that it shall reimburse the City all of its costs and actual
attorney fees incurred by the City in seeking the suspension, revocation or non-renewal of
its liquor license and/or revocation of the special land use permit, as well as enforcing such
other rights as may be available at law or in equity.
7.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Licensee and any entity or person for whom
Licensee is legally liable, agrees to be responsible for any liability, defend, pay on behalf of,
indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees and
volunteers and others working on behalf of the City against any and all claims, demands,
suits, or loss, including all costs connected therewith, including all costs and actual attorney
fees, and for any damages which may be asserted, claimed or recovered against or from
the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, volunteers or others working on
behalf of the City, by reason of personal injury, including bodily injury, death and/or
property damage, including loss of use thereof, which arises out of or is in any way
connected or associated with Licensee’s operation of its establishment at the Property.
8.
In the event Licensee fails to reimburse the City the costs and/or attorney fees as
required herein, or any part thereof, then said amount could be transferred to the tax roll
in accordance with Section 1-14 of the Birmingham City Code.
9.
Any disputes arising under this Contract, not within the jurisdiction of the Michigan
Liquor Control Commission, shall be settled either by commencement of a suit in Oakland
County Circuit Court or by compulsory arbitration, at the election of the City. The Licensee
shall notify the City of any dispute it has arising out of this Contract and shall demand that
the City elect whether the dispute is to be resolved by submitting it to compulsory
arbitration or by commencement of a suit in Oakland County Circuit Court. The City shall
make its election in writing within thirty (30) days from the receipt of such notice. If the
City elects to have the dispute resolved by compulsory arbitration, it shall be settled
pursuant to Chapter 50 of the Revised Judicature Act for the State of Michigan, with each
of the parties appointing one arbitrator and the two thus appointed appointing a third. In
the event the City fails to make such an election, any dispute between the parties may be
resolved by the filing of a suit in the Oakland County Circuit Court.
10.
This Contract shall be governed by and performed, interpreted and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan.
11.
If any provision of this contract is declared invalid, illegal or unenforceable, such
provision shall be severed from this contract and all other provisions shall remain in full
force and effect.
12.
This Contract shall be binding upon and apply and inure to the benefit of the parties
hereto and their respective successors or assigns. The covenants, conditions, and the
agreements herein contained are hereby declared binding on the CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
and Licensee. It is further agreed that there shall be no change, modification, or alteration
hereof, except in writing, signed by both of the parties hereto. Neither party shall assign
any of the rights under this contract without prior approval, in writing, of the other. Any
attempt at assignment without prior written consent shall be void and of no effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby have executed this Contract as of the date
set forth above.
By: _____________________________
Its: _____________________________
Date: ___________________________
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
By:_____________________________
Scott D. Moore, Mayor
Date: ___________________________
By:_____________________________
Larua Broski, Clerk
Date: ___________________________
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2012
FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW
820 E. Maple Rd.
All Seasons of Birmingham (formerly Hamilton Funeral Home)
To allow construction of a five-story/three-story independent senior living residence,
including 123 apartments and 8 live/work units
Mr. Clein announced he will recuse himself from this hearing as he has in the past because
his firm, Giffels Webster, has a contractual obligation with the entities involved in this
project.
Ms. Ecker advised the subject site, 820 E. Maple Rd., is currently the site of the former
Hamilton Funeral Home, and has a total land area of 1.84 acres. It is located on the
southeast corner of E. Maple Rd. and Elm St. in the Triangle District. The applicant is
proposing to demolish the existing buildings and surface parking lot to construct a 150,449
sq. ft., five-story building along E. Maple Rd., with a three-story section on the southern
portion of the property. The building will provide independent senior living units, including
123 multiple family dwelling units, and 8 live/work units along E. Maple Rd.. Parking will be
provided at grade behind and/or under the building along the southern property line. The
applicant was required to prepare a Community Impact Study in accordance with Article 7,
section 7.27(E) of the Zoning Ordinance, as they are proposing a new building containing
more than 20,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area.
The applicant appeared at the July 11, 2012 Planning Board meeting and was granted
approval of the CIS, but the application for preliminary site plan review was postponed.
The applicant revised the proposed plans based on the comments of board members and
was granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval with conditions on August 11, 2012.
With respect to the design review, most of the proposed materials and the design have
remained consistent since the last time this project was reviewed by the Planning Board.
However, since Preliminary Site Plan Review, the awnings over live/work units were
changed from fabric to metal to provide a more commercial appearance, and the NW
corner entry was recessed 3 ft. In addition, some areas of stone and brick on the previous
design have been changed to metal panels, particularly on the top level. Ms. Ecker passed
around material samples and colors.
At the July 11, 2012 Planning Board meeting and again at the August 11, 2012 Planning
Board meeting, several board members suggested that the applicant consider changing
the interior layout of the building to move the common areas to the front of the building to
enhance the interaction of residents with street life. However, the applicant has not
proposed any significant changes to the interior layout of the building at this time.
The Engineering Dept. has raised the issue that it appears the trash dumpster is about 2 ft.
higher with the finished grade than the properties to the south. Therefore, even though a 6
ft. wall is proposed there, from the residential side it will appear to be 8 ft. high because of
the change in grade.
In response to a question from Mr. Williams, Ms. Ecker stated the position of the City with
respect to a recorded easement between the former property owner of the site and the
adjoining property owner, Mr. Howard Atesian. This is a private legal matter between the
two parties and the City is not an involved party. Ms. Ecker went on to respond to another
inquiry from Mr. Williams with respect to utilization of the alley. The City’s position is that it
is a public alley and all adjacent property owners are entitled to use the alley and it cannot
be blocked because of the need for emergency access.
Ms. Lazar inquired about deliveries from Elm St. blocking the street, and Ms. Ecker
answered that would not be permitted. Deliveries will be internal to the property.
Mr. Alex Bogaerts, architect for the petitioner, was present with Mr. Mark Abernatha from
his office; along with Mr. Maurice Jerry Beznos and Mr. Douglas Etkin, developers of the
facility. Mr. Bogaerts stated the barber shop and the bank within the building are intended
to be only for the tenants.
Mr. Abernatha explained that the dumpster is screened on all sides and is in the best
location possible. Pick-ups will be limited in terms of their frequency and time of day. They
have tried to address the neighbors as much as possible. They feel that a pedestrian
walkway running south through the parking lot under the building is not necessary because
of the landscape and the way the parking has been assigned.
Mr. Bogaerts explained the intent is to give the building a light palette. They want the
tenants to feel good and uplifted by their surroundings.
Chairman Boyle asked about proposed signage for the individual live/work units. Ms. Ecker
advised that projecting signs will be mounted to the piers.
Mr. Beznos explained that live/work units will be occupied only by tenants of the building
and not rented to other businesses. Leases will be for one year.
The chairman called for public comments at 8:25 p.m.
Mr. Howard Atesian, owner of the building to the east, said the easement area is 20 ft. and
not 16 ft. as depicted on the plan, and it encompasses the area between his property line
and where the subject building will be constructed. All of the proposed landscaping puts
the taller landscaping up against his building. However, the court record shows a specific
landscaping plan that has all of the large trees and shrubs against the applicant’s building
and the lower vegetation near his building. Chairman Boyle responded that he has been
told by the city attorney that the matter of the easement will be dealt with outside of this
Planning Board. Ms. Ecker added if the landscaping is altered, the applicants will have to
come back to the Planning Board and/or the staff for administrative approval to amend the
plan. Mr. Atesian said for the record that this plan is not according to the court order and
he will pursue it beyond that.
Mr. Douglas Etkin, 327 N. Old Woodward Ave., went on the record to say they believe they
are in compliance with the easement document and will deal with their neighbor in
whatever format or forum that is necessary to work out any of their disagreements.
Mr. Rick Rattner, Attorney, 380 N. Old Woodward Ave., spoke to represent 219 Elm St.
(Kelly Crossing, LLC), southwest of the subject parcel. He requested the board to consider
certain issues that would make life easier for the people in that area and to put the issues
on record as a condition of the site plan:
During demolition and earthwork construction phase
1.
Construction traffic must enter and exit from Maple Rd. only;
2.
Install a “No Construction Traffic” sign at the Elm St. and alley entrances to the
site.
During construction of building
1.
Eliminate construction traffic in the public alley;
2.
Install “No Construction Traffic” at the alley entrance on Elm St. and to the site;
3.
Comply with all construction related City ordinances and regulations;
4.
Purchase 14 Arborvitaes for installation on Kelly Crossing, LLC property along its
easterly property line. Maintenance will be the sole responsibility of Kelly
Crossing, LLC.
During the continuing operation of the site
1.
Install permanent signs in the All Seasons parking lot giving notice that the alley
exit is only for emergency use and directing vehicular traffic to exit via Elm St.;
2.
Issue parking permits for staff and residents of the project;
3.
Install signs in the All Seasons parking lot assigning parking areas;
4.
Limit commercial truck deliveries to the site in the alley to food vendor delivery
and garbage pickup only at the frequency of four trips/week each between 8 a.m.
and 5 p.m.;
5.
Require that residents of the live/work units shall be the only employees of such
business and all live/work tenants must be residents of that live/work unit.
Specify office uses only with limited hours of operation.
Other Conditions
1.
Continue to allow parking in the alley;
2.
Install a “No Stacking” sign at the Elm St. exit from the alley and in the alley.
Ms. Sharon Krindler, owner of the building at 200 Elm St., described the numerous parking
problems in the area. She wishes the City would build a parking garage. People coming
into the subject facility are going to require caregivers, therapists and all sorts of people
that need to park. There just aren’t enough parking spaces in the Triangle District.
It was concluded that the southern border of the alley is not marked. The City needs to
designate the public space with striping, and also post signage that maintains an open
alley at all times. Additionally, Chairman Boyle emphasized if the public has a concern
about unloading on the street the City should erect a “No Unloading” sign.
Mr. Williams thought, and Chairman Boyle concurred, that more people in the
neighborhood will try to park in the All Seasons lot than the reverse.
Mr. Douglas Etkin emphasized they are strongly opposed to anything past the construction
period that the neighbors would like to impose on them. As relates to construction, they
intend to be a good citizen. A good stepping off point for their responses will be to not
regulate what happens on their property.
Chairman Boyle described how this development of housing for the elderly is very much in
line with the goals of the community for the Triangle Area. The applicant has even gone so
far as picking up the board’s idea of incorporating mixed-use and he applauds them.
Motion by Mr. Williams
Seconded by Ms. Whipple-Boyce to approve the Final Site Plan and Design for 820 E.
Maple Rd., All Seasons of Birmingham, subject to the following conditions:
1.
Applicant will be required to enter into a Streetscape Agreement with the
City prior to construction;
2.
The Planning Board specifically approves the use of non cut-off fixtures;
3.
During demolition and earthwork construction the applicant provide that
construction traffic enter and exit the site from Maple Rd. only;
4.
During demolition and earthwork construction phase the applicant install a
“No Construction Traffic” sign at the Elm St. and alley entrances to the
site;
5.
During construction of the building the applicant install a
“No Construction Traffic” sign at the alley entrance on Elm St. to the site.
Mr. Williams added for the record but not to be included in the motion that it is the
understanding of the Planning Board that the applicant has agreed to purchase 14
Arborvitae trees for installation on Kelly Crossing, LLC’s property in the existing planting
strip along Kelly Crossing’s easterly property line.
Chairman Boyle took discussion on the motion to the public at 9:03 p.m.
Mr. Mark Highlen with Maple-Elm Development Company, LLC brought up the point that
during the post demolition and earthwork construction, restricting traffic from the alley
would make the site virtually unbuildable. He asked that the motion be amended to
minimize construction traffic through the alley.
Amended by Mr. Williams and accepted by Ms. Whipple-Boyce that item 5 should
read:
During construction of the building the applicant endeavor to minimize
construction traffic in the public alley to the maximum extent reasonably
possible.
ROLLCALL VOTE
Yeas: Williams, Whipple-Boyce, Boyle, Lazar
Nays: None
Recused: Clein
Absent: DeWeese, Koseck
The board took a short recess at 9:12 p.m.

October 22, 2014 - City of Birmingham

Transcription

Similar documents

View Marketing Brochure

Scanned Document - Covenant Health

Ref: SB0160 Sun and Mountains Near the Sea, Busot Alicante

historic alleys of mercersburg - Tuscarora Area Chamber of Commerce

Ah-Nab-Awen Park - City of Grand Rapids

Directions to UCSD Extension K-12 Facility Located at: 6256

Visit Sao Paulo

BRP Flyer - III_13-ENG.indd

Flyer-325 Eastlake Ave E (PEMCO).indd

goat worker - Davon Sales