Regular Meeting of the Planning Board Wednesday, August 8, 2018 7:30 Pm 151 Martin Street, City Commission Room, Birmingham, Mi

REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2018 7:30 PM 151 MARTIN STREET, CITY COMMISSION ROOM, BIRMINGHAM, MI

A. Roll Call B. Review and Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting of July 25, 2018 C. Chairpersons’ Comments D. Review of the Agenda

E. Public Hearings

1. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 3.04, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF THE BISTRO SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT. AND TO AMEND SECTION 5.06, O1 – OFFICE DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF THE BISTRO SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT. AND TO AMEND SECTION 5.07, O2 – OFFICE DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF THE BISTRO SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT. AND TO AMEND SECTION 5.08, P – PARKING DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF THE BISTRO SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT. AND TO AMEND SECTION 5.10, B2 – GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, B2B – GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, B2C – GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF THE BISTRO SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT. AND TO AMEND SECTION 5.11, B3 – OFFICE-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF THE BISTRO SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT. AND TO AMEND SECTION 5.12, B4 – BUSINESS-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF THE BISTRO SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT. AND TO AMEND SECTION 5.13, MX – MIXED USE DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF THE BISTRO SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT. AND TO AMEND SECTION 9.02, DEFINITIONS: BISTRO

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).

F. Study Session Rules of Procedure for Study Sessions: Site Plan and Design Review, Special Land Use Permit Review and other review decisions will not be made during study sessions; Each person (member of the public) will be allowed to speak at the end of the study session; Each person will be allowed to speak only once; The length of time for each person to speak will be decided by the Chairman at the beginning of the meeting; Board members may seek information from the public at any time during the meeting.

1. Projections into the Right-of-Way 2. Church / Religious Institutions 3. Payment in Lieu of Parking in Triangle District 4. Review of Planning Board’s Action List

G. Miscellaneous Business and Communications: a. Communications b. Administrative Approval Correspondence c. Draft Agenda for the next Regular Planning Board Meeting (September 12, 2018) d. Other Business

H. Planning Division Action Items a. Staff Report on Previous Requests b. Additional Items from tonight's meeting

I. Adjournment

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM PLANNING BOARD ACTION ITEMS OF WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2018

Item Page

EXTENSION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN

1. 277 Pierce (former Varsity Shop Building) 2 Request to extend the approved Final Site Plan which will expire on August 23, 2018

Motion by Mr. Koseck 2 Seconded by Mr. Williams that the extension of the site plan for 277 Pierce should be to February 23, 2019, which is six months from the original approval's expiration date of August 23, 2018, with the following conditions: • Applicant agrees to immediately register the existing building as a vacant building with the Building Department; and • Applicant also obtain an approval for an extension of the Historic Design approval from the Historic District Commission.

Motion carried, 7-0. 2

REVISED FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW

1. 298 S. Old Woodward Ave., The Daxton Hotel (former Doctors House Calls) Request for design and material changes to the exterior of the building 3

Motion by Ms. Whipple-Boyce Seconded by Mr. Koseck to approve the Revised Final Site Plan and Design Review for 298 S. Old Woodward Ave. as follows: 5 • Darker stucco color change with respect to the penthouse, subject to administrative approval; • Approve the use of cast stone for the exterior; • Approve the metal railing to match the window cladding; • Approve the sidewalk in the via; • Approve the modifications to the second floor layout at the garden level by reducing the number of rooms that extend out to two rooms.

Motion carried, 7-0.

STUDY SESSION 5

1. Retail Discussion

Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Mr. Emerine to forward this proposed RFP along to the City

Birmingham Planning Board Proceedings July 25, 2018

Item Page

Commission for their consideration. 6

Motion carried, 7-0.

2. Residential Parking Requirements

Motion by Mr. Boyle 6 Seconded by Mr. Williams to move the proposed RFP on parking standards to the City Commission with the suggested changes as noted this evening. 6 Motion carried, 7-0. 7 3. Sign Ordinance Review

Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Mr. Boyle that the Planning Board set a public hearing date of 7 September 12, 2018 to consider eliminating the Overlay Sign Standards in Article 03, section 3.04 (f) of the Zoning Ordinance. Minutes from the HDC and DRB will be included at the time of the public hearing and the materials 7 will be made available to the public and to the Planning Board.

Motion carried, 7-0. 8

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2018 City Commission Room 151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan

Minutes of the regular meeting of the City of Birmingham Planning Board held on July 25, 2018. Chairman Scott Clein convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.

Present: Chairman Scott Clein; Board Members Robin Boyle, Bert Koseck, Janelle Whipple- Boyce, Bryan Williams; Alternate Board Members Jason Emerine, Nasseem Ramin; Student Representative Ellie McElroy (arrived at 7:42 p.m.)

Absent: Board Members Stuart Jeffares, Daniel Share; Student Representatives Madison Dominato, Sam Fogel

Administration: Matthew Baka, Sr. Planner Brooks Cowan, Planner Jana Ecker, Planning Director Carole Salutes, Recording Secretary

07-128-18

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 11, 2018

Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Ms. Whipple-Boyce to approve the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting of July 11, 2018 as presented.

Motion carried, 5-0.

VOICE VOTE Yeas: Williams, Whipple-Boyce, Clein, Emerine, Koseck Nays: None Abstain: Boyle, Koseck Absent: Jeffares, Share

07-129-18

CHAIRPERSON’S COMMENTS (none)

07-130-18

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (no change)

07-131-18

EXTENSION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN

1. 277 Pierce (former Varsity Shop Building) Request to extend the approved Final Site Plan which will expire on August 23, 2018

Ms. Ecker recalled that on August 23, 2017, the above-captioned property was granted Final Site Plan and Design Review approval by the Planning Board to construct a new five-story mixed-use building. This project was also approved by the Historic District Commission as it is located in the Central Business Historic District.

The Zoning Ordinance provides that a site plan is valid for one year from the date of approval. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting an extension of the site plan for 277 Pierce, as they require additional time to obtain tenants to occupy the new building.

Given the fact that the existing building has not been demolished at this time, the Planning Division recommends that should the Planning Board grant a site plan extension, the following conditions be added: • Applicant agrees to immediately register the existing building as a vacant building with the Building Dept; and • Applicant also obtain an approval for an extension of the Historic Design approval from the Historic District Commission.

Ms. Eavan Yaldo, Saroki Architecture, was present on behalf of Kajoian Management. She explained that with the conditions of the five-story mixed-use in the D-4 Overlay Zoning they are looking at retail components for the first and second floors. They are trying to get a two- story retailer if possible.

Discussion among the board members followed as to how long the extension should be.

Motion by Mr. Koseck Seconded by Mr. Williams that the extension of the site plan for 277 Pierce should be to February 23, 2019, which is six months from the original approval's expiration date of August 23, 2018, with the following conditions: • Applicant agrees to immediately register the existing building as a vacant building with the Building Department; and • Applicant also obtain an approval for an extension of the Historic Design approval from the Historic District Commission.

There were no public comments at 7:40 p.m.

Motion carried, 7-0.

VOICE VOTE Yeas: Koseck, Williams, Boyle, Clein, Emerine, Ramin, Whipple-Boyce Nays: None Absent: Jeffares, Share

07-132-18

REVISED FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW

1. 298 S. Old Woodward Ave., The Daxton Hotel (former Doctors House Calls) Request for design and material changes to the exterior of the building

Chairman Clein announced that he would be recusing himself on this project as he has to date because his firm is involved. Therefore, he turned the gavel over to Mr. Williams.

Mr. Baka recalled the subject site, 298 S. Old Woodward, covers .618 acres in the Downtown Overlay on the northwest corner of Brown St. and S. Old Woodward Ave. The site was previously approved to construct a 25,182 sq. ft., five-story mixed-use building. The building will provide ground floor retail, 3 floors of hotel guest rooms, and 17 residential units on the fifth floor. Parking for the residential units will be provided in the subterranean levels of the building.

The applicant has submitted for a Revised Final Site Plan review to change exterior materials present on the building façade. The applicant is now proposing to cover the main façade with cast stone and the residential fifth floor facade is proposed to now be constructed of coarsely textured stucco. The applicant is also proposing to pave the via to the north of the property to match the exposed aggregate used in the S. Old Woodward Ave. reconstruction project. Finally, the applicant is proposing to reconfigure rooms on the second floor of the hotel to reduce the bump out into the open space of the green roof above the first floor. As a result, the number and size of the proposed skylights has changed as well.

Design Review The revised Final Site Plan & Design Review application submitted by the applicant is proposing a change to the materials that comprise the façade of the building. The approved materials that are proposed to be changed are: • Stone cladding on floors 1-4; • Coated metal cladding on the 5th floor; • Coated metal window surrounds on floors 1-4; • Coated metal cladding in between windows on floors 1-3.

The new materials proposed to replace the former materials, in corresponding order, are: • Cast stone wall assembly on floors 1-4 (Mix 2169 from Arch. Cast Stone); • Coarsely textured stucco wall assembly on the 5th floor; • Cast stone window surrounds on floors 1-4; • Cast stone spandrels in between windows on floors 1-3 (Mix 1438 from Arch. Cast Stone).

Mr. Charlie Stetson, Principal at Booth Hansen Architects, described the proposed revisions:

• The reason for the change to cast stone on the facade is that they were having trouble getting limestone samples that were consistent with the desired texture and color. Cast stone can be very consistent across the entire building. The field which is lighter grey limestone is proposed to be lighter grey cast stone. Also, the spandrels in the window surrounds will go to a darker grey cast stone. • The fifth floor is proposed to be rough textured stucco to match the stone as closely as possible.

• For the via they propose to match the paving of the new S. Old Woodward Ave. construction project streetscape by removing the previously proposed stone pavers in favor of exposed aggregate. • A metal picket railing painted the same color as the mullions for the windows, as well as the screenwall around the mechanical, is proposed around the fifth floor. Ms. Ecker advised that a condition of the original approval was that the previously proposed glass railings are not permitted in the Downtown Overlay. • They have extended the cornice at the top of the first floor all the way around the building. It is the darker of the two stones and makes the building more unified. • The corner terrace rooms previously extended out into the second-floor roof area and resulted in a less than ideal room layout. So they propose to modify that portion of the building to eliminate the terrace rooms altogether.

Mr. Boyle inquired if any other finish was considered for the railing, such as stainless steel. Mr. Stetson explained these will be very thin bars and will not be very visible.

Mr. Koseck did not have an issue with the dark railing, as he thought it would almost go away. Mr. Stetson verified for him that proposed cast stone units are the same size as the original limestone. Mr. Koseck said he was disappointed that the building seems watered down from the original approval. He preferred a darker stucco for the penthouse that isn't trying to match the stone. Mr. Stetson said he will consider the darker material and bring it up to their design team. He added that the detailing of the building will give it a crisp feeling.

Ms. Whipple-Boyce commented she was a little disappointed about the change from the limestone to the cast stone. She was in support of the metal railing and the color change to the darker stucco because it would cause the metal railing to almost go away.

Motion by Ms. Whipple-Boyce Seconded by Mr. Koseck to approve the Revised Final Site Plan and Design Review for 298 S. Old Woodward Ave. as follows: • Darker stucco color change with respect to the penthouse, subject to administrative approval; • Approve the use of cast stone for the exterior; • Approve the metal railing to match the window cladding; • Approve the sidewalk in the via; • Approve the modifications to the second floor layout at the garden level by reducing the number of rooms that extend out to two rooms.

There were no comments from members of the public at 8 p.m.

Motion carried, 7-0.

VOICE VOTE Yeas: Whipple-Boyce, Koseck, Boyle, Emerine, Ramin, Williams Nays: None Recused: Clein Absent: Jeffares, Share

STUDY SESSION

1. Retail Discussion

Chairman Clein rejoined the meeting.

Mr. Cowan recalled the Planning Board has been studying the Redline Retail District since January. They brought their findings to the City Commission and asked to bring in a retail consultant. The Planning Dept. has now prepared an RFP for a retail consultant for the Planning Board to review.

On July 11, 2018, the Planning Dept. presented the first draft of the RFP to the Planning Board. The Board's suggestions from that meeting have been incorporated into tonight's draft.

Mr. Boyle did not understand why the word "Line" is included in the title, "Retail Frontage Line Review." Mr. Cowan replied that he went by the definitions from the Zoning Ordinance. Board members concluded that the title should be changed to omit "Line" and reworded to “Downtown Retail Review”.

Mr. Williams concluded with regard to SCOPE OF WORK (5) Trends in Retail and Projections, that the scope of retail is changing rapidly and the projection should be for up to 10 years.

Chairman Clein said his only concern with SCOPE OF WORK (7) Coordinate Public Engagement, is they are specifically prescribing how many meetings will be held. Perhaps say that it is a minimum of two public engagement meetings to receive feedback. The suggestion was to substitute "meetings" with “activities." That would give the consultant the opportunity to do different things. Everyone liked that idea.

Mr. Williams pointed out that getting the public to engage is critical to getting public buy-in.

Ms. Ecker provided language for SCOPE OF WORK (7) Coordinate Public Engagement: "The Contractor will be expected to host two (2) public engagement activities to receive input and engage the public related to the Retail Frontage Line policy . . ." Further, for SCOPE OF WORK (7) Attendance at Meetings (c), change "meetings" to "activities."

Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Mr. Emerine to forward this proposed RFP along to the City Commission for their consideration.

Motion carried, 7-0.

VOICE VOTE Yeas: Williams, Emerine, Boyle, Clein, Koseck, Ramin, Whipple-Boyce Nays: None Absent: Jeffares, Share

07-123-18

2. Parking Requirements

Ms. Ecker noted that on July 11, 2018, the Planning Board reviewed the draft amendments to eliminate residential parking requirements discussed at their joint meeting with the City Commission on June 18, 2018. Several board members expressed concern that parking requirements for single-family residential uses should not be eliminated throughout the whole City. Rather, the focus should be on the mixed-use areas in the Downtown, the Triangle and Rail Districts. In addition, the RFP should be broadened so as not to just study the residential parking standards, but look at parking requirements for other uses as well. Also, the board had directed staff to add the objective that the reason for the study is to try to increase the density of residential in those three mixed-use areas and also to encourage smaller, more affordable units within those areas.

Also on July 11, 2018, board members stated that the study should also include current and future parking trends and best practices for parking standards to achieve the desired mix of residential and other uses in similar walkable communities to Birmingham.

A revised draft RFP for a parking standards study incorporating the Planning Board’s comments from the July 11, 2018 meeting was presented. Ms. Ecker suggested the idea of having the order of meetings set out as it is in the Retail RFP.

Mr. Boyle asked if there is some language that ties this study in with the Master Plan. Ms. Ecker thought the sense of the City Commission was that it should be separate. She said both of the RFPs that are looked at tonight are designed to be handled much quicker than the Master Plan process because the Commission sensed more urgency on those issues. Also, It is a good idea to acknowledge somewhere in these documents that the City is also embarking on a Master Planning Project.

Mr. Boyle suggested that language be added that demonstrates to the consultant that this study is part of a portfolio of policy activity that the City is engaging in with urgency on retail and equal importance for parking, building up to a Master Plan process.

Motion by Mr. Boyle Seconded by Mr. Williams to move the proposed RFP on parking standards to the City Commission with the suggested changes as noted this evening.

Motion carried, 7-0.

VOICE VOTE Yeas: Boyle, Williams, Clein, Emerine, Koseck, Ramin, Whipple-Boyce Nays: None Absent: Jeffares, Share 07-124-18

3. Sign Ordinance Review

Mr. Baka recalled at the July 11, 2018 Planning Board meeting various issues regarding signage and windows were discussed. Specifically, the issue of the conflicts between the Standard Sign Ordinance and the Overlay Ordinance was discussed. Having two sets of signage standards has made interpretation and enforcement difficult. This issue has led to an inordinate number of variance requests recently.

In addition, staff noted that the Overlay Signage Standards appear in both the Sign Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance, which is redundant and would require public hearings for both documents in order to make any changes. At the July 11, 2018 meeting there appeared to be consensus that having signage regulations in both documents was not necessary and that eliminating the Overlay Sign Standards from the Zoning Ordinance would be a first step towards correcting the issues being created by having multiple sets of regulations.

Accordingly, the Planning Division has now provided an ordinance amendment that would eliminate the Overlay Signage Standards from the Zoning Ordinance.

Chairman Clein said this needs to be presented by this Board to the City Commission as step one. Ms. Ecker added if this Board decides there should only be one Sign Ordinance, and therefore the Zoning Ordinance Overlay Signage Standards should be eliminated, then a motion to that effect should be directed to the Design Review Board ("DRB"). Then the DRB can provide their comments on what may need to be changed in the Standard Sign Standards before going to the Commission.

Mr. Baka advised that the DRB and the Historic District Commission ("HDC") had a study session and there was consensus that the Overlay Signage Standards should change and they felt there should be an opportunity to look at the Standard Sign Ordinance and make possible improvements at the same time.

Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Mr. Boyle that the Planning Board set a public hearing date of September 12, 2018 to consider eliminating the Overlay Sign Standards in Article 03, section 3.04 (f) of the Zoning Ordinance. Minutes from the HDC and DRB will be included at the time of the public hearing and the materials will be made available to the public and to the Planning Board.

There were no comments from members of the public at 8:46 p.m.

Motion carried, 7-0.

VOICE VOTE Yeas: Williams, Boyle, Clein, Emerine, Koseck, Ramin, Whipple-Boyce Nays: None Absent: Jeffares, Share

07-125-18

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Communications (none)

b. Administrative Approval Requests

 1997 Villa, Eton Square Apartments - • Installation of PVC 6 ft. high lattice fence in between units; • Replacing existing wood sections.

 209 Hamilton Row, Emagine Theater - Added roof screen at new RTU.

 609 S. Old Woodward Ave., Don Thomas Sporthaus - 40 ft. x 80 ft. tent to be installed in parking lot to sell product for annual sale.

c. Draft Agenda for the next Regular Planning Board Meeting of August 8, 2018

 Bistro public hearing;  Definition of church/religious institution;  Triangle District Parking Fund regulations; and  Projections into the right-of-way.

The board's consensus was that they also wish to review their Action List at the next meeting. d. Other Business (none)

07-126-18

PLANNING DIVISION ACTION ITEMS a. Staff report on previous requests (none)

b. Additional items from tonight’s meeting (none)

07-127-18

ADJOURNMENT

No further business being evident, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.

Jana L. Ecker Planning Director

MEMORANDUM

Planning Division

DATE: August 8th, 2018

TO: Planning Board

FROM: Jana L. Ecker, Planning Director

SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Bistro Regulations

• Use of Eisenglass – Doing so extends the time period outdoor dining areas are in operation which increases the number of seats for the restaurant as a whole for a majority of the year; • District Requirements – The Downtown District, Triangle District, and Rail District have different opportunities which could merit different requirements for bistros locating within them; • On-street Dining/Rooftop Dining – the use of on-street parking spaces and rooftops in addition to the sidewalk area allows the addition of larger outdoor dining areas; • Parking Needs – the expansion of outdoor dining increases the number of people dining at the restaurant, which increases parking demand; • Building Code Requirements – the enclosure of outdoor dining areas triggers Building Code regulations such as Energy Code compliance, fire suppression requirements, fire separation distances and exterior wall fire resistive ratings; and • Incentivizing Seating Capacity Tiers – Allowing an increased amount of indoor seating and/or outdoor dining seating for bistros based upon conditional standards such as shared parking, landscaping, greenspace, etc.

At the joint City Commission/Planning Board meeting of June 19th, 2017 the issue of bistro regulations was discussed at length. There was a consensus that a review of the bistro requirements and how they relate to the various areas in which they are permitted was warranted. Additionally, Commission members saw good reason to potentially regulate bistros differently depending on the district in which they are located.

Accordingly, the Planning Board began studying the existing bistro regulations and discussing potential new regulations. Over several months, the Planning Board studied existing bistros and discussed the goals of the bistro program in the future.

1 On August 9th, 2017, the Planning Board considered ordinance language stating “Outdoor seating on public property shall not exceed 40 seats.” The discussion on this topic was that some may not agree with an exorbitant amount of outdoor seating, but each bistro should be reviewed on an individual basis.

On September 13th, 2017, the Planning Board revisited the issue of limiting the number of outdoor seating, and decided that this should be reviewed on a case-by case basis. There was general consensus that the Board will see the outdoor dining plans in each application, and if they think the number of seats exceeds what is reasonable, they will ask the applicant to change the number and/or formation of outdoor seating.

Rooftop dining was also discussed on September 13th, 2017, where the Board also decided that this should be reviewed on an individual basis. It was noted that outdoor dining on the street level was preferable, and if the applicant met this requirement, then the Board would generally be in support of rooftop dining.

On April 11, 2018, the Planning Board conducted a public hearing and unanimously passed a motion recommending approval of the attached ordinance amendments for bistro regulations to the City Commission. Please find attached the draft ordinance language and meeting minutes for your consideration. Language related to limiting the number of outdoor seats or rooftop dining was not included because the Board agreed that these should be reviewed on an individual basis.

On April 23, 2018 the City Commission set a public hearing for May 14, 2018 to consider approval of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance related to bistros.

On May 14th, after reviewing the proposed changes, the general consensus from the City Commission was that they like the 42’’ rail standards as well as the rule banning year round outdoor dining enclosures. However, the City Commission did not vote on the proposal because they wanted the Planning Board to reconsider setting a limit on the number of outdoor seating allowed at bistros, and to address rooftop dining.

On June 13th, The Planning Board considered the request of the City Council to discuss the number of outdoor dining seats bistros are allowed and permissible rooftop dining. The Board decided to examine language stating that outdoor seating may not exceed the number of permissible seats indoors. They also decided on evaluating language that would permit rooftop dining as long as adequate street level dining is provided. Sample ordinance language reflecting these changes has been provided below.

On July 11th, language regarding the number of permissible outdoor dining seats and rooftop dining was finalized with amendments including conditions that rooftop dining may not impact surrounding properties in a negative manner and that rooftop seats count towards outdoor dining provisions.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

To recommend approval to the City Commission of the following amendments to Chapter 126, Zoning, of the Birmingham City Code:

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO.

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, SECTION 3.04(C)(10), SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR A BISTRO IN THE DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT.

3.04 Specific Standards C. Building Use 10. Bistros: Bistros are permitted with a valid Special Land Use Permit with the following conditions: A. No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 10 seats; B. Alcohol is served only to seated patrons, except those standing in a defined bar area; C. No dance area is provided; D. Only low key entertainment is permitted; E. Bistros must have tables located in the storefront space lining any street, or pedestrian passage; F. A minimum of 70% glazing must be provided along building facades facing a street or pedestrian passage between 1 foot and 8 feet in height; G. All bistro owners must execute a contract with the City outlining the details of the operation of the bistro; and H. Outdoor dining must be provided, weather permitting, along an adjacent street or passage during the months of May through October each year. Outdoor dining is not permitted past 12:00 a.m. If there is not sufficient space to permit such dining on the sidewalk adjacent to the bistro, an elevated, ADA compliant, enclosed defined platform must be erected on the street adjacent to the bistro to create an outdoor dining area if the Engineering Department determines there is sufficient space available for this purpose given parking and traffic conditions. I. Enclosures facilitating year round dining outdoors are not permitted. J. Railings, planters or similar barriers defining outdoor dining platforms may not exceed 42’’ in height. K. Rooftop dining is permitted with the conditions that surrounding properties are not impacted in a negative manner and adequate street level dining is provided as determined by the Planning Board and City Commission. Rooftop dining seats will count towards the total number of permissible outdoor dining seats.

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______Andrew Harris, Mayor

______Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO.

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.06(A), O1 – OFFICE DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR A BISTRO IN THE O1 DISTRICT.

5.06 O1 District A. Bistros: Bistros are permitted with a valid Special Land Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 10 seats in the Downtown Overlay District, or 15 seats in the Triangle District and Rail District; 2. Alcohol is served only to seated patrons, except those standing in a defined bar area; 3. No dance area is provided; 4. Only low key entertainment is permitted; 5. Bistros must have tables located in the storefront space lining any street, or pedestrian passage; 6. A minimum of 70% glazing must be provided along building facades facing a street or pedestrian passage between 1 foot and 8 feet in height; 7. All bistro owners must execute a contract with the City outlining the details of the operation of the bistro; and 8. Outdoor dining must be provided, weather permitting, along an adjacent street or passage during the months of May through October each year. Outdoor dining is not permitted past 12:00 a.m. If there is not sufficient space to permit such dining on the sidewalk adjacent to the bistro, an elevated, ADA compliant, enclosed defined platform must be erected on the street adjacent to the bistro to create an outdoor dining area if the Engineering Department determines there is sufficient space available for this purpose given parking and traffic conditions. 9. Enclosures facilitating year round dining outdoors are not permitted. 10. Railings, planters or similar barriers defining outdoor dining platforms may not exceed 42’’ in height. 11. Rooftop dining is permitted with the conditions that surrounding properties are not impacted in a negative manner and adequate street level dining is provided as determined by the Planning Board and City Commission. Rooftop dining seats will count towards the total number of permissible outdoor dining seats.

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______Andrew Harris, Mayor ______Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO.

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.07(A), O2 – OFFICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR A BISTRO IN THE O2 DISTRICT.

5.07 O2 District A. Bistros: Bistros are permitted with a valid Special Land Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 10 seats in the Downtown Overlay District, or 15 seats in the Triangle District and Rail District; 2. Alcohol is served only to seated patrons, except those standing in a defined bar area; 3. No dance area is provided; 4. Only low key entertainment is permitted; 5. Bistros must have tables located in the storefront space lining any street, or pedestrian passage; 6. A minimum of 70% glazing must be provided along building facades facing a street or pedestrian passage between 1 foot and 8 feet in height; 7. All bistro owners must execute a contract with the City outlining the details of the operation of the bistro; and 8. Outdoor dining must be provided, weather permitting, along an adjacent street or passage during the months of May through October each year. Outdoor dining is not permitted past 12:00 a.m. If there is not sufficient space to permit such dining on the sidewalk adjacent to the bistro, an elevated, ADA compliant, enclosed defined platform must be erected on the street adjacent to the bistro to create an outdoor dining area if the Engineering Department determines there is sufficient space available for this purpose given parking and traffic conditions. 9. Enclosures facilitating year round dining outdoors are not permitted. 10. Railings, planters or similar barriers defining outdoor dining platforms may not exceed 42’’ in height. 11. Rooftop dining is permitted with the conditions that surrounding properties are not impacted in a negative manner and adequate street level dining is provided as determined by the Planning Board and City Commission. Rooftop dining seats will count towards the total number of permissible outdoor dining seats.

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______Andrew Harris, Mayor

______Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO.

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.08(A), P – PARKING DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR A BISTRO IN THE P DISTRICT.

5.08 P District A. Bistros: Bistros are permitted with a valid Special Land Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 10 seats in the Downtown Overlay District, or 15 seats in the Triangle District and Rail District; 2. Alcohol is served only to seated patrons, except those standing in a defined bar area; 3. No dance area is provided; 4. Only low key entertainment is permitted; 5. Bistros must have tables located in the storefront space lining any street, or pedestrian passage; 6. A minimum of 70% glazing must be provided along building facades facing a street or pedestrian passage between 1 foot and 8 feet in height; 7. All bistro owners must execute a contract with the City outlining the details of the operation of the bistro; and 8. Outdoor dining must be provided, weather permitting, along an adjacent street or passage during the months of May through October each year. Outdoor dining is not permitted past 12:00 a.m. If there is not sufficient space to permit such dining on the sidewalk adjacent to the bistro, an elevated, ADA compliant, enclosed defined platform must be erected on the street adjacent to the bistro to create an outdoor dining area if the Engineering Department determines there is sufficient space available for this purpose given parking and traffic conditions. 9. Enclosures facilitating year round dining outdoors are not permitted. 10. Railings, planters or similar barriers defining outdoor dining platforms may not exceed 42’’ in height. 11. Rooftop dining is permitted with the conditions that surrounding properties are not impacted in a negative manner and adequate street level dining is provided as determined by the Planning Board and City Commission. Rooftop dining seats will count towards the total number of permissible outdoor dining seats.

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______Andrew Harris, Mayor ______Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO.

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.10(B), B2 – GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, B2B – GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, B2C – GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR A BISTRO IN THE B2B DISTRICT.

5.10 B2 District, B2B District, B2C District B. Bistros: Bistros are permitted with a valid Special Land Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 10 seats in the Downtown Overlay District, or 15 seats in the Triangle District and Rail District; 2. Alcohol is served only to seated patrons, except those standing in a defined bar area; 3. No dance area is provided; 4. Only low key entertainment is permitted; 5. Bistros must have tables located in the storefront space lining any street, or pedestrian passage; 6. A minimum of 70% glazing must be provided along building facades facing a street or pedestrian passage between 1 foot and 8 feet in height; 7. All bistro owners must execute a contract with the City outlining the details of the operation of the bistro; and 8. Outdoor dining must be provided, weather permitting, along an adjacent street or passage during the months of May through October each year. Outdoor dining is not permitted past 12:00 a.m. If there is not sufficient space to permit such dining on the sidewalk adjacent to the bistro, an elevated, ADA compliant, enclosed defined platform must be erected on the street adjacent to the bistro to create an outdoor dining area if the Engineering Department determines there is sufficient space available for this purpose given parking and traffic conditions. 9. Enclosures facilitating year round dining outdoors are not permitted. 10. Railings, planters or similar barriers defining outdoor dining platforms may not exceed 42’’ in height. 11. Rooftop dining is permitted with the conditions that surrounding properties are not impacted in a negative manner and adequate street level dining is provided as determined by the Planning Board and City Commission. Rooftop dining seats will count towards the total number of permissible outdoor dining seats.

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication. ______Andrew Harris, Mayor ______Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO.

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.11(A), B3 – OFFICE-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR A BISTRO IN THE B3 DISTRICT.

5.11 B3 District A. Bistros: Bistros are permitted with a valid Special Land Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 10 seats in the Downtown Overlay District, or 15 seats in the Triangle District and Rail District; 2. Alcohol is served only to seated patrons, except those standing in a defined bar area; 3. No dance area is provided; 4. Only low key entertainment is permitted; 5. Bistros must have tables located in the storefront space lining any street, or pedestrian passage; 6. A minimum of 70% glazing must be provided along building facades facing a street or pedestrian passage between 1 foot and 8 feet in height; 7. All bistro owners must execute a contract with the City outlining the details of the operation of the bistro; and 8. Outdoor dining must be provided, weather permitting, along an adjacent street or passage during the months of May through October each year. Outdoor dining is not permitted past 12:00 a.m. If there is not sufficient space to permit such dining on the sidewalk adjacent to the bistro, an elevated, ADA compliant, enclosed defined platform must be erected on the street adjacent to the bistro to create an outdoor dining area if the Engineering Department determines there is sufficient space available for this purpose given parking and traffic conditions. 9. Enclosures facilitating year round dining outdoors are not permitted. 10. Railings, planters or similar barriers defining outdoor dining platforms may not exceed 42’’ in height. 11. Rooftop dining is permitted with the conditions that surrounding properties are not impacted in a negative manner and adequate street level dining is provided as determined by the Planning Board and City Commission. Rooftop dining seats will count towards the total number of permissible outdoor dining seats.

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication. ______Andrew Harris, Mayor ______Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO.

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.12(B), B4 – BUSINESS-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR A BISTRO IN THE B4 DISTRICT.

5.12 B4 District B. Bistros: Bistros are permitted with a valid Special Land Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 10 seats in the Downtown Overlay District, or 15 seats in the Triangle District and Rail District; 2. Alcohol is served only to seated patrons, except those standing in a defined bar area; 3. No dance area is provided; 4. Only low key entertainment is permitted; 5. Bistros must have tables located in the storefront space lining any street, or pedestrian passage; 6. A minimum of 70% glazing must be provided along building facades facing a street or pedestrian passage between 1 foot and 8 feet in height; 7. All bistro owners must execute a contract with the City outlining the details of the operation of the bistro; and 8. Outdoor dining must be provided, weather permitting, along an adjacent street or passage during the months of May through October each year. Outdoor dining is not permitted past 12:00 a.m. If there is not sufficient space to permit such dining on the sidewalk adjacent to the bistro, an elevated, ADA compliant, enclosed defined platform must be erected on the street adjacent to the bistro to create an outdoor dining area if the Engineering Department determines there is sufficient space available for this purpose given parking and traffic conditions. 9. Enclosures facilitating year round dining outdoors are not permitted. 10. Railings, planters or similar barriers defining outdoor dining platforms may not exceed 42’’ in height. 11. Rooftop dining is permitted with the conditions that surrounding properties are not impacted in a negative manner and adequate street level dining is provided as determined by the Planning Board and City Commission. Rooftop dining seats will count towards the total number of permissible outdoor dining seats.

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______Andrew Harris, Mayor ______Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO.

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.13, MX(C) – (M) – MIXED USE DISTRICT, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUILDING USE, TO ADD REGULATIONS FOR A BISTRO IN THE MX DISTRICT AND RENUMBER REGULATIONS FOLLOWING (C).

5.13 MX District A. Alcoholic Beverage Sales: Alcoholic beverage sales for consumption off the premises in conjunction with grocery stores, drugstores, party stores and delicatessens is permitted. B. Automobile Rental Establishment: An automobile rental establishment is permitted provided all vehicles are stored in a public or private parking garage C. Bistros: Bistros are permitted with a valid Special Land Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 15 seats 2. Alcohol is served only to seated patrons, except those standing in a defined bar area; 3. No dance area is provided; 4. Only low key entertainment is permitted; 5. Bistros must have tables located in the storefront space lining any street, or pedestrian passage; 6. A minimum of 70% glazing must be provided along building facades facing a street or pedestrian passage between 1 foot and 8 feet in height; 7. All bistro owners must execute a contract with the City outlining the details of the operation of the bistro; and 8. Outdoor dining must be provided, weather permitting, along an adjacent street or passage during the months of May through October each year. Outdoor dining is not permitted past 12:00 a.m. If there is not sufficient space to permit such dining on the sidewalk adjacent to the bistro, an elevated, ADA compliant, defined platform must be erected on the street adjacent to the bistro to create an outdoor dining area if the Engineering Department determines there is sufficient space available for this purpose given parking and traffic conditions. 9. Enclosures facilitating year round dining outdoors are not permitted. 10. Railings, planters or similar barriers defining outdoor dining platforms may not exceed 42’’ in height. 11. Rooftop dining is permitted with the conditions that surrounding properties are not impacted in a negative manner and adequate street level dining is provided as determined by the Planning Board and City Commission. Rooftop dining seats will count towards the total number of permissible outdoor dining seats.

C. D.Dwelling – Accessory: Residential units located in accessory structures are permitted provided that the residential units meet the minimum unit requirements identified in each two-page layout in Article 2. Where there is a conflich between this provision and the requirements of Section 4.02, this section shall take precedent. D. E. E. F. F. G. G. H. H. I. I. J. J. K. K. L. L. M. M. N.

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______Andrew Harris, Mayor

______Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDINANCE NO.

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND ARTICLE 9, SECTION 9.02, DEFINITIONS, TO AMEND THE EXISTING DEFINITION OF BISTRO.

9.02 Definitions

Bistro: When located in the Downtown Overlay District, a restaurant with a full service kitchen with interior seating for no more than 65 people and seating for outdoor dining of no more than 65 people. When located in the Triangle District or Rail District, a restaurant with a full service kitchen with interior seating for no more than 85 people and seating for outdoor dining of no more than 85 people.

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______Andrew Harris, Mayor

______Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

MEMORANDUM

Planning Division

DATE: July 11th, 2018

TO: Planning Board

FROM: Brooks Cowan, City Planner

APPROVED: Jana L. Ecker, Planning Director

SUBJECT: Bistro Regulations

On August 9th, 2017, the Planning Board considered ordinance language stating “Outdoor seating on public property shall not exceed 40 seats.” The discussion on this topic was that some may not agree with an exorbitant amount of outdoor seating, but each bistro should be reviewed on an individual basis.

On April 23, 2018 the City Commission set a public hearing for May 14, 2018 to consider approval of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance related to bistros.

I. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Mark Nickita called the meeting to order at 8:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Nickita Mayor Pro Tem Harris Commissioner Bordman Commissioner Boutros Commissioner DeWeese Commissioner Hoff Commissioner Sherman Scott Clein, Planning Board Chairman Stuart Jeffares, Member Bert Koseck, Member Janelle Whipple-Boyce, Member J. Bryan Williams, Member

ABSENT: Robin Boyle, Member Gillian Lazar, Member Lisa Prasad, Member Daniel Share, Member

ADMINISTRATION: City Manager Valentine, City Attorney Studt, Deputy Clerk Arft, Planning Director, Ecker, Building Official Johnson

III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Mayor Nickita explained that this is a workshop session to discuss and evaluate various planning issues, with the intent to create an Action List for the Planning Board. City Manager Valentine added that more discussion will be needed on each item by the City Commission. The priorities will be determined by the Commission at a future meeting.

E. BISTRO ALLOWANCES AND RESTRICTIONS Ms. Ecker said there has been concern expressed over the size of Bistros recently. She explained that a Bistro is defined as a restaurant with 65 seats or less, with no more than 10 of them at a bar, with a full service kitchen, low key entertainment, tables that must line the storefront, and outdoor dining. The biggest issue has been how much is too much outdoor dining. The intent when Bistros was started was to encourage outdoor dining, but it was not apparent at the time how far owners would look for creative opportunities to expand the outdoor dining. She suggested clarifications as to maximums, location, enclosures and the building code issues such as energy code, fire suppression might be needed. Parking needs are also a big concern.

Mayor Nickita added that the original concept for Bistros was just in the downtown area and that has changed. Once the area expanded to the Triangle area and Rail District, it changed the circumstance because of parking and available outdoor space.

Commissioner Bordman suggested considering different rules for different areas. The needs are different. Perhaps part of the study should be whether to have the exact same requirements in each of our districts.

Commissioner DeWeese suggested we need an intermediate level that applies in different situations. He considers this a high priority issue.

Mr. Koseck suggested that we should study the materials used and also the intent.

Commissioner Hoff agreed it is time to review the Bistro ordinance. It has developed differently than what was planned.

Mayor Nickita commented that it is time to review the ordinance.

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2017 City Commission Room 151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan 07-134-17 4. Bistro Regulations Mr. Baka recalled that In 2007 the City of Birmingham amended the Zoning Ordinance to create the bistro concept that allows small eclectic restaurants to obtain a liquor license if they have no more than 65 seats, including 10 at a bar, and low key entertainment only. Mr. Baka observed that as the bistro concept has evolved over the past 10 years, new applicants have sought creative ways to make their establishments distinctive from other restaurants and bistros in the City, and to increase the number of seats through the use of all season outdoor dining. The following issues have been raised: • Use of Eisenglass – extends the time period outdoor dining areas are in operation which increases the number of seats for restaurant as a whole for a majority of the year; • On-street Dining/Rooftop Dining – the use of on-street parking spaces and rooftops in addition to the sidewalk area allows the addition of larger outdoor dining areas; • Parking Needs – the expansion of outdoor dining increases the number of people dining at the restaurant, which increases parking demand; • Building Code Requirements – the enclosure of outdoor dining areas triggers Building Code regulations such as Energy Code compliance, fire suppression requirements, fire separation distances and exterior wall fire resistive ratings. At the joint City Commission/Planning Board meeting of June 19, 2017 this issue was discussed at length. There seemed to be consensus that a review of the bistro requirements and how they relate to the various areas in which they are permitted is warranted. Accordingly, the Planning Division is now requesting that the Planning Board begin discussions on how these concerns should be addressed. Mr. Williams indicated he never envisioned 10 years ago that some of the sites would be so disproportionately large based on outdoor dining. Ms. Whipple-Boyce said the bistros should be looked at from the standpoint of their locations in different districts throughout the City. Chairman Clein thought there is a need to study the general parking requirement in the MX District based on the number of outdoor dining seats. Mr. Boyle added that bistros might be incentivized there by allowing more seating outside. Further, also consider that the Triangle District is different. Mr. Williams noted the single biggest thing the board never anticipated was the extent to which Eisenglass would provide for almost four season use. Ms. Ecker added maybe the board doesn't mind having Eisenglass on a rainy day but they don't want to see it extend the season past November 1st through March 31st. There are two issues: the look of it, and whether it changes the character of use from seasonal to permanent. There was consensus to look at including the opportunity for rooftop dining for bistros. Ms. Lazar agreed the larger spaces, particularly in the MX District, might be increased. But, the neighbors may be upset if they feel there will be increased intrusion into the neighborhoods as a result. Maybe some type of parking requirement might have to be imposed. Chairman Clein thought that Residential Permit Parking might be needed in that case.

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2017 City Commission Room 151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan 08-153-17 STUDY SESSIONS 1. Bistro Regulations Mr. Baka noted that in 2007 the City of Birmingham amended the Zoning Ordinance to create the bistro concept that allows small eclectic restaurants to obtain a Liquor License. Bistros are permitted in certain zone districts with a valid Special Land Use Permit ("SLUP") under several conditions. As the bistro concept has evolved over the past ten years, new applicants have sought creative ways to make their establishments distinctive from the other restaurants and bistros in the City, and to increase the number of seats through the use of all season outdoor dining. At the joint City Commission/Planning Board meeting of June 19, 2017 the issue of clarifying bistro regulations was discussed at length. There seemed to be consensus that a review of the bistro requirements and how they relate to the various areas in which they are permitted is warranted. Additionally, Commission members saw good reason to potentially regulate bistros differently depending on the district in which they are located.

The Planning Division would like to begin to consider addressing the issues of parking, outdoor dining and Eisenglass enclosures via ordinance language changes. The following examples of potential ordinance language changes are based on two methods of regulating bistros. The thinking is that current bistros would not be impacted by what is being proposed. The first option would be to amend Chapter 126, Zoning, to universally create development standards for bistros that would apply to all zoning districts that permit bistros. Universal regulation would ensure that the dining experience in one bistro (outside of menu, service, theme etc.) is the same as dining in any other bistro. This could mean putting a limit on outdoor seating of 40 seats for all districts, even if there is room (public property or private property) for more. Eisenglass or vinyl enclosures could be prohibited entirely as to not abuse the outdoor dining season limit set forth by the City (April-November). As for parking, requiring all bistros to include their outdoor dining square footage in parking requirements could make sure that there will be enough parking for all of those extra seats. Creating extra parking requirements, though, could also discourage outdoor seating and counteract a key intent of the Bistro Ordinance.

The second approach to clarifying bistro regulations would be to amend Chapter 126, Zoning, to create separate bistro standards depending on the bistro's location in the Downtown, Triangle or Rail Districts. In doing so separately, the City can take into account the different space and parking conditions present in different districts. Adding parking requirements, like including outdoor dining area square footage in the parking calculation, to the conditions of certain bistro location districts could help alleviate parking issues. Outdoor dining maximums are a reasonable consideration Downtown because there is less space for a large outdoor dining area. In the Rail and Triangle Districts where street frontage is typically larger, outdoor dining maximums of 40 or 60 seats could be appropriate. Finally, Eisenglass or vinyl enclosures might be considered in some areas along the Woodward Ave. frontage of the Triangle District to alleviate the noise pollution patrons receive from the major road. Mr. Williams thought the major focus should be that one size doesn't fit all. Mr. Jeffares commented that it would be interesting to find out how much of the lunch crowd consists of office users who are already parked in town. It was consensus that there should not be an enclosure that allows bistros to extend their outdoor dining season. The bistro concept is being pushed beyond its original boundaries. Mr. Boyle thought they should be discussing the issue of 65 indoor seats. The board needs to review that and consider the possibility that number could go up. Then bistros could rely less on large outdoor seating and have a stronger business that doesn't tie them to 65 indoor seats. Ms. Whipple-Boyce thought there could be implications to allowing more indoor seating. They don't want Birmingham to become an all restaurant city. She doesn't think parking is that much of a concern because when the offices clear out the restaurants become busy. Don't forget that there are many local residents who walk from their homes to the Downtown bistros. She does not want to encourage a bistro model behind the building. She likes the outdoor seating in the front of buildings to activate the sidewalk space. Look at each bistro independently and see what makes sense, rather than putting a number to it. Also, consider opportunities for rooftop dining. Maybe the districts need be viewed differently because they are different and because some of the parking situations are different. Mr. Koseck said in his opinion the bistros are working. The intent was to attract small scale, unique establishments with a variety of different food types. Why treat the districts differently? Forty outdoor seats is fine and he doesn't want to get caught up in parking for outdoor dining. He totally thinks the outdoor dining should not be enclosed. Pick half of the number of interior seating for outdoor dining; 40 seats is fine. He would rather see three small bistros in the Rail District than one that has 150 seats.

Mr. Williams echoed that and added if seating is outdoor, it shouldn't be enclosed. The total seating ought be the combination of both indoor and outdoor. Parking generally works and the only time it doesn't is the 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. window. Lunch is problematic in the Downtown area. Chairman Clein observed he doesn't think including parking in the count really matters. To him the issue is not so much the size of the bistros; it is that they are allowed to be wrapped in plastic and located in places the board doesn't like. Perhaps some incentives could be put forth for establishments to meet if they want to increase their outdoor dining. Mr. Boyle hoped to find a way to make the industrial land use in the Rail District work for bistros.

Mr. Baka summarized that the board is divided on whether or not there should be a limit on the number of outside seats. Board members stated they were definitely not in favor of outdoor dining enclosures, and most of the board is leaning against adding additional parking requirements for outdoor dining seats. Nearly everyone wants to keep the districts separate. Mr. Williams added they need to look at the parking, but not Downtown.

No one from the public wanted to comment at 10:10 p.m.

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 City Commission Room 151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan 09-175-17 2. Bistro Regulations Mr. Baka noted that in 2007 the City of Birmingham amended the Zoning Ordinance to create the bistro concept that allows small eclectic restaurants to obtain a liquor license. Bistros are defined in Article 09 of the Zoning Ordinance as restaurants with a full service kitchen with interior seating for no more than 65 people and additional seating for outdoor dining. Bistros are permitted in certain zone districts with a valid Special Land Use Permit ("SLUP") along with several conditions. As the bistro concept has evolved over the past 10 years, new applicants have sought creative ways to make their establishments distinctive from other restaurants and bistros in the City, and to increase the number of seats through the use of all season outdoor dining. There have been several issues raised: • Use of Eisenglass – extends the time period outdoor dining areas are in operation which increases the number of seats for restaurant as a whole for a majority of the year; • On-street Dining/Rooftop Dining – the use of on-street parking spaces and rooftops in addition to the sidewalk area allows the addition of larger outdoor dining areas; • Parking Needs – the expansion of outdoor dining increases the number of people dining at the restaurant, which increases parking demand; • Building Code Requirements – the enclosure of outdoor dining areas triggers Building Code regulations such as Energy Code compliance, fire suppression requirements, fire separation distances and exterior wall fire resistive ratings. • At the joint City Commission/Planning Board meeting of June 19, 2017 the issue of clarifying bistro regulations was discussed at length. On July 24th, 2017 the City Commission moved the review of bistros up on the Planning Board's Action List.

On August 9, 2017 the Planning Board held a study session to begin to consider addressing the issues of parking, outdoor dining and Eisenglass enclosures. Discussion revealed that the Planning Board did not support regulating the number of outdoor dining seats, or requiring additional parking for such outdoor dining areas. There was unanimous support on the board for restricting the use of enclosures on outdoor dining areas to ensure that outdoor dining is truly seasonal. There was also discussion about setting different standards for the interior number of seats in different areas.

Accordingly the draft language has been revised to provide options that would eliminate the ability to utilize enclosures year round. The language is now silent on the issues of limiting the number of outdoor seats and requiring additional parking for those seating areas. At this time four proposed options have been added to the ordinance language: • Permanent enclosures shall not be permitted for outdoor dining areas. • Weather proof enclosures facilitating year around dining outdoors are not permitted. • Outdoor dining is not permitted between November 16 and March 31. • The use of any type of enclosure system (including but not limited to fabric, Eisenglass, vinyl panels, drapes, plant materials shall not be permitted for outdoor dining areas.

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

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2018 City Commission Room 151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan

Minutes of the regular meeting of the City of Birmingham Planning Board held on January 10, 2018. Chairman Scott Clein convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.

Present: Chairman Scott Clein; Board Members Robin Boyle, Stuart Jeffares, Bert Koseck, Janelle Whipple-Boyce, Bryan Williams Alternate Board Members Nasseen Ramin, Daniel Share

Absent: Board Member Vice-Chairperson Gillian Lazar; Student Representatives Ariana Afrakhteh, Isabella Niskar

Administration: Matthew Baka, Sr. Planner

Jana Ecker, Planning Director

Carole Salutes, Recording Secretary

01-05-18

2. Bistro Regulations

Mr. Williams rejoined the board and Ms. Ramin left.

Mr. Baka advised that recently there has been discussion between the City Commission and the Planning Board that perhaps there should be a re-examination of the bistro requirements which already began last year with several study sessions.

As the bistro concept has evolved over the past 10 years, new applicants have sought creative ways to make the establishments distinctive from other restaurants and bistros in the City, and to increase the number of seats through the use of all season outdoor dining. The following issues have been raised: • Use of Eisenglass – Doing so extends the time period outdoor dining areas are in operation which increases the number of seats for the restaurant as a whole for a majority of the year; • District Requirements – The Downtown District, Triangle District, and Rail District have different opportunities which could merit different requirements for bistros locating within them; • On-street Dining/Rooftop Dining –The use of on-street parking spaces and rooftops in addition to the sidewalk area allows the addition of larger outdoor dining areas; • Parking Needs – The expansion of outdoor dining increases the number of people dining at the restaurant, which increases parking demand; • Building Code Requirements – The enclosure of outdoor dining areas triggers Building Code regulations such as Energy Code compliance, fire suppression requirements, fire separation distances and exterior wall fire resistive ratings. • Incentivizing Seating Capacity Tiers – Allowing an increased amount of indoor seating and/or outdoor dining seating for bistros based upon conditional standards such as shared parking, landscaping, green space, etc.

At the joint City Commission/Planning Board meeting of June 19th, 2017 the issue of bistro regulations was discussed at length. There was consensus that a review of the requirements and how they relate to the various areas in which they are permitted is warranted. Additionally, Commission members saw good reason to potentially regulate bistros differently depending on the district in which they are located.

The Planning Board held several study sessions on this matter and potential revisions and additions to the bistro standards were discussed. Draft language was created to provide options that would eliminate the ability to utilize enclosures year-round, and would not limit the number of outdoor dining seats or require additional parking for those seating areas. There was discussion on whether or not the 65 seat limit should be revised, or whether rooftop dining should be encouraged and what an acceptable railing height is for platform decks. It was suggested that perhaps the Triangle District and Rail District could establish different standards for maximum seating. New draft language was presented that expands interior seating for bistros in the Triangle and Rail Districts to 85 seats with 15 at the bar, while interior seating for the Downtown District remains at 65. Current rooftop dining standards were deemed acceptable, but the board wished to see railings on platform decks limited to 42 in. in height.

There was not a consensus on requiring shared parking as an incentive to get more seats at the bar.

Mr. Baka discussed Chapter 126 of the Code, sections 3.04, 5.06, 5,07, 5.08, 5.10,5.11, 5.12, 5.13 and 9.02.

Consensus was for sections 3.04, 5.06, 5,07, 5.08, 5.10,5.11, 5.12, change "enclosed platform" to "enclosed platform with a guard rail." Also find a way to consolidate I., J., and K in section 3.04 and other sections with the same language to a more precise limitation for enclosure systems for outdoor dining areas.

Mr. Baka clarified for Ms. Whipple-Boyce that vegetation can be planted above the 42 in. railing height.

There was general support for a larger number of indoor seating allowed by right for bistros located in the Rail and Triangle Districts.

Ms. Whipple-Boyce said it has been proven now that the Class C Liquor License holders and the bistro license holders are succeeding well side-by-side. Therefore, she is very supportive of allowing 85 indoor seats in the Rail and Triangle Districts. Losing parking spaces in the summer with more on-street dining doesn't concern her.

Mr. Williams observed that the issue of bistro locations in the Rail District has not been addressed. Ms. Ecker advised that currently they are allowed anywhere within the boundaries of the Rail District with a Special Land Use Permit ("SLUP"). Mr. Williams thought a bistro would significantly adversely impact the residential and live/work areas in the neighborhood.

Ms. Whipple-Boyce agreed with establishing some boundaries. From DPS north it is pretty well developed. She would like to see a bistro somewhere south of DPS.

Mr. Jeffares was not in favor of boundaries because he would like to see all applications. Mr. Koseck agreed with Mr. Jeffares.

Mr. Williams thought maybe it is enough to say there are sensitive areas both in the Rail District and in the Triangle District that need attention whenever a SLUP comes up. Other members agreed.

Mr. Williams stated he is in favor of expanding the number of outdoor dining seats in the Rail and Triangle Districts, but is adamantly opposed to increasing them Downtown. That is where most of the Class C Licenses are and he noted that one just closed. There is no question in his mind that bistros have had an effect on some of the Class C licenses in the Downtown area.

Further, he suggested having the new rules apply to existing bistros. Ms. Ecker explained that could happen if they came back for any changes.

Board members discussed putting a maximum formula in effect for outdoor dining in relationship to indoor dining in the Rail and Triangle Districts. Mr. Share was in favor of a 200% cap there that applies to all outdoor dining, thus outdoor dining (including rooftop dining) could be no more than twice the number of interior dining seats.

Mr. Jeffares did not want a cap. He said he would rather have the Planning Board be able to make decisions on the applications vs. having strict rules and not having any applications.

The board's consensus was to see this one more time before moving forward.

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2018 Department of Public Services 851 S. Eton Street, Birmingham, Michigan

Minutes of the regular meeting of the City of Birmingham Planning Board held on March 14, 2018.Chairman Scott Clein convened the meeting at 7:32 p.m.

Present: Chairman Scott Clein; Board Members Stuart Jeffares, Bert Koseck, Janelle Whipple-Boyce, Bryan Williams; Alternate Board Members Nasseen Ramin, Daniel Share; Student Representative Ellie McElroy (left at 9:07 p.m.)

Absent: Board Members Robin Boyle, Gillian Lazar; Student Representatives Madison Dominato, Sam Fogel

Administration: Matthew Baka, Sr. Planner Brooks Cowan, Planner Jana Ecker, Planning Director Carole Salutes, Recording Secretary

03-39-18

3. Bistro Regulations

Background: Mr. Baka advised that recently there has been discussion between the City Commission and the Planning Board that perhaps there should be a re-examination of the bistro requirements which already began last year with several study sessions.

Issue: As the bistro concept has evolved over the past 10 years, new applicants have sought creative ways to make the establishments distinctive from other restaurants and bistros in the City, and to increase the number of seats through the use of all season outdoor dining. The following issues have been raised: • Use of Eisenglass – Doing so extends the time period outdoor dining areas are in operation which increases the number of seats for the restaurant as a whole for a majority of the year; • District Requirements – The Downtown District, Triangle District, and Rail District have different opportunities which could merit different requirements for bistros locating within them; • On-street Dining/Rooftop Dining – the use of on-street parking spaces and rooftops in addition to the sidewalk area allows the addition of larger outdoor dining areas; • Parking Needs – the expansion of outdoor dining increases the number of people dining at the restaurant, which increases parking demand; • Building Code Requirements – the enclosure of outdoor dining areas triggers Building Code regulations such as Energy Code compliance, fire suppression requirements, fire separation distances and exterior wall fire resistive ratings. • Incentivizing Seating Capacity Tiers – Allowing an increased amount of indoor seating and/or outdoor dining seating for bistros based upon conditional standards such as shared parking, landscaping, green space, etc.

The Planning Board held several study sessions on this matter and potential revisions and additions to the bistro standards were discussed. Draft language was created to provide options that would eliminate the ability to utilize enclosures year-round, and not to limit the number of outdoor dining seats or require additional parking for those seating areas. There was discussion on whether or not the 65 seat limit should be revised, or whether rooftop dining should be encouraged and what an acceptable railing height is for platform decks. it was suggested that perhaps the Triangle District and Rail District could establish different standards for maximum seating. New draft language has been presented that expands interior seating for bistros in the Triangle and Rail Districts to 85 seats with 15 at the bar, while interior seating for the Downtown District remains at 65. Current rooftop dining standards were deemed acceptable, but the board wished to see railings on platform decks limited to 42 in. in height.

On January 10, 2018 the Planning Board reviewed the latest draft ordinance language for the proposed bistro regulation changes. The board requested that the language regarding on-street platforms be adjusted so that the reference to enclosing them is eliminated. Also, eliminate permanent enclosures facilitating year-round dining outdoors. Lastly, railings on platform decks may not exceed 42 in. in height in order to create an open atmosphere where the dining adds vitality to the streetscape. Board members wanted to see the final draft language prior to setting a public hearing.

It was agreed the word "permanent" in front of "enclosures" should be eliminated.

Discussion confirmed that rooftop dining is allowable under SLUPs on a case-by-case basis. Outdoor dining on the street is excluded from the rooftop number of seats.

Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Mr. Koseck to set a public hearing for April 11, 2018 to consider the proposed ordinance amendment.

There were no comments from the public at 9:18 p.m.

Motion carried, 7-0.

VOICE VOTE Yeas: Williams, Koseck, Clein, Jeffares, Ramin, Share, Whipple-Boyce Nays: None Absent: Boyle, Lazar

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2018 City Commission Room 151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan

Minutes of the regular meeting of the City of Birmingham Planning Board held on March 28, 2018.Chairman Scott Clein convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.

Present: Chairman Scott Clein; Board Members Robin Boyle, Stuart Jeffares, Bert Koseck, Janelle Whipple-Boyce, Bryan Williams; Member Daniel Share; Student Representative Ellie McElroy (arrived at 8:35 p.m.)

Absent: Alternate Board Member Nasseen Ramin; Student Representatives Madison Dominato, Sam Fogel

Administration: Brooks Cowan, Planner Jana Ecker, Planning Director Carole Salutes, Recording Secretary

04-57-18

PUBLIC HEARING 1. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

The Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m.

Ms. Ecker recalled the board has been talking about the bistro regulations for almost a year. At a joint City Commission/Planning Board on June 19, 2017 several issues came up that the Commission asked the Planning Board to look at. So, over the past several months the board has been studying this and they have agreed upon language and brought it to a public hearing tonight.

Primarily the changes were to set up two different types of bistros, keeping the standards for the number of interior seats and number of seats at the bar the same for Downtown because they are in the Parking Assessment District and there isn't an excessive amount of parking. Also, creating another section for bistros in the Rail District and Triangle District that would allow a greater number of interior seats and a greater number of seats at the bar, given the fact that they couldn't do that unless they provided the required parking.

Several other changes were made: • Enclosures facilitating year-around dining are not permitted; • At the suggestion of the Building Official, railings, platforms or similar barriers should not exceed 42 in. in height; • The Building Official also suggested that the word "enclosed" be taken out and replaced with "defined" when talking about an elevated ADA compliant enclosed platform. • The bistro standards are proposed to be added in the MX District. • Language was added to the existing regulations with regard to the B-3 and B-4 standards on bistros: "No direct connect additional bar permit is allowed and the maximum seating at a bar cannot exceed 10 seats in the Downtown Overlay District, or 15 seats in the Triangle District and Rail District."

Board members were in agreement with the changes.

Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Mr. Share to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendments to the City Commission with the changes outlined tonight.

Motion carried, 7-0.

VOICE VOTE Yeas: Williams, Share, Boyle, Jeffares, Koseck, Whipple-Boyce, Williams Nays: None Absent: None

The public hearing closed at 7:40 p.m.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 14, 2018 MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 151 MARTIN 7:30 P.M.

I. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

II. ROLL CALL ROLL CALL: Present, Mayor Harris Mayor Pro Tem Bordman Commissioner Boutros Commissioner DeWeese Commissioner Hoff Commissioner Nickita Commissioner Sherman Absent, None Administration: City Manager Valentine, City Attorney Currier, Senior Planner Baka, Communications Director Byrnes, Assistant City Planner Chapman, Planning Director Ecker, DPS Manager Filipski, Building Official Johnson, Assistant Building Official Morad, City Clerk Mynsberge, City Engineer O’Meara, Director of Public Services Wood

05-137-18 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO BISTRO ORDINANCE Mayor Harris opened the public hearing at 8:41 p.m.

Senior Planner Baka reviewed the joint Commission/Planning Board effort to consider possible amendments to the Bistro Ordinances, and the proposed Bistro Ordinance amendments as suggested by the Planning Board to the Commission.

Senior Planner Baka said the Planning Board recommended eliminating enclosed platforms for dining because another ordinance prohibits enclosures.

Mayor Pro Tem Bordman stated: • If the desire is to require a platform with a railing, the language should read “platform with a railing”. • If Planning Board does not address rooftop dining so as not to encourage it, rooftop dining will be implicitly allowed by the lack of any language addressing the issue.

Planning Director Ecker explained that the Planning Board sought: • To not be overbroad in the requirements for outdoor dining, rooftop dining, and parking for outdoor dining so as to encourage its development while still allowing its regulation through the SLUP application process. • To maintain the difference between a smaller bistro license and a Class C license by prohibiting enclosed year-round outdoor dining for a Bistro.

Commissioner Nickita believed the prohibition on year-round outdoor dining insufficiently addresses the need to keep bistro-licensed restaurants smaller than Class C-licensed restaurants, especially since bistro licenses already technically preclude year-round outdoor dining.

Planning Director Ecker explained the Planning Board did not want to limit total outdoor seating by ordinance, but that the SLUP application process may allow the City to sufficiently limit the seating in a bistro-licensed restaurant on a case-by-case basis.

Planning Director Ecker confirmed that the proposals potentially allow bistro-licensed restaurants to have unlimited seating in the warmer months, and that this was the Planning Board’s intent.

Commissioner Nickita stated: • His concerns regarding seating capacity were enough for him to not move these amendments forward as currently proposed. • A 42”-inch maximum rail would be sufficient, though he would like to see them smaller. • Preventing the use of eisenglass around outdoor seating is a positive move to control seating capacity. • It might be wise to codify platform standards.

Planning Director Ecker replied that when platforms were first discussed by the Planning Board in 2007, they decided to leave the requirements open so as not to inhibit creativity. She continued that the Commission could ask the Planning Board to revisit that, should the Commission see fit.

Commissioner Nickita clarified he does not seek to regulate design standards for platforms, but fundamental building standards such as size, materials, edge conditions, sleeper channels, non- skid texture and other related criteria.

City Manager Valentine stated that city staff can create a formalized platform standard for the Commission to review and potentially adopt.

Commissioner DeWeese said the intended benefits of the bistro were: • Activation of the street; • Focus on food and not alcohol; and, • The creation of intimacy within a so-licensed restaurant.

Commissioner DeWeese continued that: • Moving seating up to higher floors or rooftops fails to activate the street. • He would like to see bistro licenses remain closer to their original intent. • Different districts could potentially have different bistro requirements.

Mayor Harris suggested that the Commission could approve the proposed ordinance language and direct staff and the Planning Board to re-address outdoor seating issues.

Mayor Pro Tem Bordman said: • A reconsideration of the outdoor seating issue may also affect the indoor capacity of a bistro-licensed establishment. • There are enough other concerns that all proposed amendments should return to the Planning Board.

Commissioner Nickita said: • The Planning Board should provide seating parameters, and not require the Commission to determine said parameters with every individual bistro SLUP application. • He would be comfortable having the Planning Board review the amendments and send them back to the Commission.

Norman LePage, owner of Big Rock Chop House, voiced his support for the Commission’s suggestions.

Senior Planner Baka told Mr. LePage that the bistro seating regulations increased from 65 indoor seats to 85 indoor seats in order to encourage more bistro applications in certain areas of the City.

Mayor Pro Tem Bordman told Mr. LePage that should any existing establishment come before the Commission seeking to change their SLUP bistro license, the Commission can require that the establishment come into alignment with the new bistro requirements.

Jeremy Sassoon appeared before the Commission and said: • There should be a focus group to consider the difference between a bistro license and a Class C license. • The City should clarify its standards for bistro licenses and other applications, because he feels he has been denied two licenses for subjective, not objective, reasons.

Joe Zane appeared before the Commission and said he would like to see bistro licenses granted in the Triangle District, even if it requires relaxing the standards a bit.

There being no further comment, Mayor Harris closed the public hearing at 9:24 p.m.

The Commission agreed to send the proposed ordinance amendments back to the Planning Board for reconsideration.

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2018 City Commission Room

151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan

06-103-18

2. Bistro Regulations

Mr. Cowan advised that as the bistro concept has evolved over the past 10 years, new applicants have sought creative ways to make the establishments distinctive from other restaurants and bistros in the City, and to increase the number of seats through the use of all season outdoor dining. At the joint City Commission/Planning Board meeting last year, the issue was discussed and there was consensus that a review of the bistro regulations is warranted.

Accordingly, the Planning Board began studying the existing bistro regulations and discussing potential new regulations. Over several months the Planning Board studied existing bistros and discussed the goals of the bistro program in the future.

On August 9, 2017 the Planning Board considered ordinance language suggesting outdoor seating on public property should not exceed 40 seats. The discussion on this topic was that some may not agree with an exorbitant amount of outdoor seating but each bistro should be reviewed on an individual basis. There was unanimous support for restricting the use of enclosures on outdoor dining to ensure that outdoor dining is truly seasonal.

On September 13, 2017 the Planning Board revisited the issue of limiting the number of outdoor seating and decided it should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. There was also general consensus that if the board thinks the number of seats exceeds what is reasonable they will ask the applicant to change that number. Rooftop dining was also discussed and the board decided it should be reviewed on an individual basis. It was noted that outdoor dining on the street level was preferable, and if the applicant met this requirement, then the Board would generally be in support of rooftop dining.

On April 11, 2018, the Planning Board conducted a public hearing and unanimously passed a motion recommending approval of the attached ordinance amendments for bistro regulations to the City Commission. Language related to the maximum number of outdoor seats or rooftop dining was not included because the board had agreed that these should be reviewed on an individual basis.

On May 14, 2018, after reviewing the proposed changes, the general consensus from the City Commission was that they like the 42 in. rail standards as well as the rule banning year-round outdoor dining enclosures. However, the Commission did not vote on the proposal because they wanted the Planning Board to reconsider setting a limit on the number of outdoor seating allowed at bistros, and to address rooftop dining.

Therefore, as directed by the City Commission, issues for discussion related to bistro requirements include:

• Maximum number of outdoor dining seats bistros are allowed; and • Permissible rooftop dining. • Ms. Ecker thought the main point that the Commission was trying to get across was they feel that with the outdoor dining being so large, it makes a bistro too close to the size of what a Class C establishment could be. Some of the existing Class C holders could potentially be upset that a bistro was morphing into a standard Class C establishment.

Ms. Whipple-Boyce thought that what the Commission would really like from the Board is to put a restriction on the number of outdoor seats in the Rail and Triangle Districts.

Mr. Koseck said he likes the quaintness and smallness of a bistro. Ms. Whipple-Boyce added that she thinks it is all about fairness to the quota license holders and she believes the Commission wants a cap on the number of outdoor seats so as not to compete with the quota license holders.

Chairman Clein noticed that there are a few bistros that have more seats outside than they are allowed to have inside, doubling their size and allowing them to get quite close to the quota license capacity.

Mr. Jeffares received confirmation that what is decided will not affect any existing bistro.

Mr. Boyle said the chart that reflects the bistros should be amended to include Whole Foods. Also, the Planning Board is being asked to make a decision because it would be fair to another license holder. That is a political decision and it should be taken up by the political body and not the Planning Board.

Chairman Clein made it clear that in his opinion the motivation of this board has not been to look at this as fairness or equity or economics. However, the motivation of the elected officials may have been that, and thus their reasoning for sending it to the Planning Board to look at it from a land planning perspective.

Ms. Whipple-Boyce proposed saying that outdoor seating for bistros should not exceed their permissible maximum indoor seating. However, Mr. Share did not see that it makes sense from a planning perspective to impose an artificial number Downtown. He likes the ability to control and react to individual situations. It was thought that this matter can be discussed at the end of the joint Planning Board/City Commission meeting.

Mr. Jeffares did not think that long-term, rooftop dining will be a big issue because of the limited number of sites where it could exist.

Mr. Boyle said that other than Griffin Claw and Big Rock they have not seen that bistros work effectively outside of Downtown. It strikes him as odd that the board is trying to weaken the incentive for bistros in the Rail and Triangle Districts rather than improving it.

The Chairman said with respect to rooftop dining they could say that it is allowed with approval of the City Commission and provided the applicant has satisfied street level outdoor dining requirements and there is no negative impact on surrounding properties. He added they will have had the joint meeting before the next regular Planning Board meeting and will be able to make a determination on the language. The hours of operation for rooftop dining can also be discussed.

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2018 City Commission Room

151 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan

07-121-18

STUDY SESSION

1. Bistro Regulations

Mr. Cowan recalled that over several months the Planning Board studied existing bistros and discussed the future goals of the bistro program. One of the issues has been the number of seats that are permitted for outdoor dining. The Planning Board had determined that they wanted to review outdoor dining seating on a case-by-case basis. They sent that proposal to the City Commission; however the Commission sent it back saying that with no limit on the outdoor dining seats for bistros they felt the bistros were getting too large and felt they were competing with the Class C Liquor License holders. Also, they asked the Planning Board to review rooftop dining.

Therefore, Mr. Cowan included draft language this time stating that rooftop dining is permitted as long as adequate street-level dining is provided, as determined by the Planning Board and City Commission.

Then for the definition of Bistro, Section 9.02 he added that when located in the Triangle District or Rail District, a bistro is a restaurant that has a full service kitchen with interior seating for no more than 85 people and seating for outdoor dining of no more than 85 people. So, outdoor seating is kept equal to indoor seating.

Ms. Whipple-Boyce did not know how this proposal would be received but she thought it is a good starting place. Mr. Jeffares did not think it would hurt anything and agreed it could be tried for a bit to see how it works.

Chairman Clein agreed and noted it is abundantly clear to him that the City Commission wants a number. With respect to rooftop dining, he suggested language in paragraph 11 read that rooftop dining is permitted as long as adequate street level dining is provided and the rooftop dining will not pose any negative impact on surrounding properties as determined by the Planning Board and the City Commission.

Board members agreed to also include in paragraph 11 that rooftop dining is permitted as a portion of allowable outdoor dining.

Motion by Mr. Williams Seconded by Mr. Share to schedule a public hearing for August 8, knowing that if staff cannot get proper notice out it will be postponed to September.

Motion carried, 7-0.

There was no audience present.

MEMORANDUM

Planning Division

DATE: August 3, 2018

TO: Planning Board

FROM: Brooks Cowan, City Planner

APPROVED: Jana L. Ecker, Planning Director

SUBJECT: Commercial Projections onto Public Property

The City permits projections of certain architectural elements into the right of way, including awnings, signage, canopies, marquees, planters and other similar elements. The recent renovation of the 100 S. Old Woodward building and the 335 E. Maple building have raised questions as to whether projecting elements should be permitted, and if so, whether there should be restrictions on the materials used. The City Code does not contain any comprehensive standards or regulations governing the projection of awnings, architectural details, balconies etc. into the right-of-way. However, the regulations that do exist are scattered in several locations.

Chapter 126, Zoning Ordinance Regulations

The only regulations dealing with projections currently in the Zoning Ordinance can be found in Article 3, Overlays. Article 3, section 3.04(B) of the Zoning Ordinance states:

5.) First-floor awnings may encroach upon the frontage line and public sidewalk, but must avoid the street trees; provide at least 8 feet of clearance above the sidewalk; and be set back a minimum of 2 feet from the road curb.

6.) Upper-floor awnings shall be permitted only on vertically proportioned windows, provided that the awning is only the width of the window, encroaches upon the frontage line no more than 3 feet, and is not used as a backlit sign.

Thus, the Zoning Ordinance allows for the projection of awnings into the public right of way as long as the required 8’ of clearance is provided, and upper floor awnings do not project into the right of way more than 3’. However, this regulation is provided in Article 3, and only applies in the Downtown Birmingham Overlay District. There are no other such regulations governing properties outside of the Downtown Birmingham Overlay District.

The Planning Board may wish to consider expanding the requirements in Article 3, section 3.04(B) of the Zoning Ordinance to include other projections, such as balconies, canopies, or architectural elements which are not specifically regulated at this time in the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Board may also wish to consider replicating the above requirements and / or any expanded regulations in Article 4 and apply them to additional zoning districts outside of the Downtown Birmingham Overlay District.

Chapter 98, Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places Regulations

Additional regulations concerning potential projections into the right of way can be found in Chapter 98 of the City Code. Section 2 of Chapter 98, Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places states:

(2) Construction and maintenance of awnings, canopies, marquees. All awnings, canopies and marquees shall be constructed to withstand loads as specified, and in accordance with provisions of chapter 22, and shall be maintained in a clean, whole, safe and sound condition at all times, and any awning, canopy or marquee which shall become torn, frayed, loose, or out of repair as a whole, shall be dismantled and removed by the owner thereof. If such awning, canopy or marquee shall become torn, frayed, loose and out of repair in part, the same shall be repaired promptly, upon notification from the building official. Upon failure or neglect of the owner of any awning, canopy, or marquee to repair or remove the same within five days after due notice, requiring such removal or repair, has been received from the building official, such building official shall have the power, and it shall be his duty, to dismantle and remove any such awning, canopy or marquee which is maintained contrary to the provisions of this section. Any costs incurred by the city in connection therewith may be charged against the property upon which such awning, canopy or marquee is located, in accordance with provisions of chapter X of the city Charter.

Thus, Section 2 of Chapter 98, Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places provide regulations dealing with the construction and maintenance of awnings, canopies and marquees, which implies, but does not specifically state, that they are permitted to extend over a street, sidewalk or other public space. Section 2 also states that such structures must be constructed in accordance with Chapter 22, which adopts the regulations of the Building Code.

Michigan Building Code Regulations

Chapter 32 of Michigan’s Building Code, Section 3202, Encroachments in the Public Right-of- Way, addresses encroachments, and provides specific requirements based upon the height of encroachments above grade.

Section 3202.2 states that encroachments above grade and below 8’ in height are prohibited, unless they meet one of these exceptions:

3202.2.1 Steps. Steps shall not project more than 12” and shall be guarded by approved devices not less than 3’ in height, or shall be located between columns or pilasters.

3202.2.2 Architectural features. Columns or pilasters, including bases and moldings, shall not project more than 12”. Belt courses, lintels, sills, architraves, pediments and similar architectural features shall not project more than 4”.

3202.2.3 Awnings. The vertical clearance from the public right-of-way to the lowest part of any awning, including valences, shall be not less than 7’

Section 3202.3 further states that encroachments 8’ or more above grade are permitted, but must comply with the following:

3202.3.1 Awnings, canopies, marquees and signs. Awnings, canopies, marquees and signs shall be constructed so as to support applicable loads as specified in Chapter 16. Awnings, canopies, marquees and signs with less than 15’ clearance above the sidewalk shall not extend into or occupy more than two-thirds the width of the sidewalk measured from the building. Stanchions or columns that support awning, canopies, marquees and signs shall be located not less than 2’ in from the curb line.

3202.3.2 Windows, balconies, architectural features and mechanical equipment. Where the vertical clearance above grade to projecting windows, balconies, architectural features or mechanical equipment is more than 8’, 1” of encroachment is permitted for each additional 1” of clearance above 8’, but the maximum encroachment shall be 4’.

Finally, section 3202.3.3 further states that encroachments 15’ or more above grade shall not be limited.

Thus, the Building Code does provide detailed standards for projections of varying heights that the Planning Board may wish to consider adding to the Zoning Ordinance for future projects.

Potential issues for discussion include whether or not to permit permanent architectural projections into the right-of-way. If so, the Planning Board may wish to examine at what height above grade the projections would be allowed, and what length into the right-of-way the projections would be allowed to extend.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COMMISSION / PLANNING BOARD JOINT WORKSHOP SESSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 2017 DPS FACILITY, 851 SOUTH ETON 8:00 P.M.

B. COMMERCIAL PROJECTIONS ONTO PUBLIC PROPERTY/ ARCHITECTURAL ALLOWANCES

Ms. Ecker explained that Chapter 98 implies that awnings, balconies, marquees, and canopies are permitted to project over the public right-of-way, but does not clearly state that they are permitted. They are to comply with Chapter 22, which are the Building Code regulations. The question has that arisen is should it be clarified in the Zoning Ordinance which, if any projections are permitted, and to address the height, projection or permitted materials for architectural features projecting into the public right of way.

Mayor Nickita added that the property line is the building face, so anything that projects beyond the building face is technically over City property. When the projections are a bit atypical or if they take on other forms, it becomes more difficult. Ms. Ecker said while we have a review process, we do not have a hard and fast regulation as to how far it can project.

In response to Commissioner Hoff, Ms. Ecker said we could potentially determine a size of how many inches a projection could protrude into the right of way, and if the location on the building would impact how far it could protrude.

Commissioner DeWeese said some of these projections are pleasing to the eye and are pedestrian-friendly, so the key may not be to define exactly how much, but maybe a minimum which would trigger a review standard.

Mr. Koseck said it is worth more study and investigation and development of some criteria or measurement.

Mayor Nickita said this issue is worthy of another layer of review to incorporate clear guidelines.

MEMORANDUM

Planning Division Date: August 1, 2018

To: Planning Board

From: Nicholas Dupuis, Planning Intern

Approved: Jana L. Ecker

Subject: Churches & Religious Institutions – Ordinance Language Updates

The City of Birmingham has allowed churches and religious institutions across the city for many years. Churches are permitted in the B1, B2, B2B, B2C, and B4 zones, while also being permitted under a Special Land Use Permit in the R1A, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, O1, P, MX, TZ2 and TZ3 zones. Religious institutions are only permitted under a Special Land Use Permit in the MX, TZ2 and TZ3 zones. As it stands, the City of Birmingham Zoning Ordinance does not define churches or religious institutions.

Some recent examples of church or religious institution activity in the City have to do with the Holy Name Church (630 Harmon), Grace Baptist Church (280 E. Lincoln), First Presbyterian (1669 W. Maple), and a home at 1578 Lakeside where a synagogue was proposed but never came to fruition. Many of the amendments to the Special Land Use Permits of these churches/religious institutions were for signage, but also for the purchase of other property for the development of other church related buildings or parking lots. Thus far, the City has considered “church” to be an overarching categorical term in the decision making process.

However, Black’s Law Dictionary defines a church as follows:

In its most general sense, the religious society founded and established by Jesus Christ, to receive, preserve, and propagate his doctrines and ordinances. A body or community of Christians united under one form of government by the profession of the same faith, and the observance of the same ritual and ceremonies. The term may denote either a society of persons who, professing Christianity, hold certain doctrines or observances which differentiate them from other like groups, and who use a common discipline, or the building in which such persons habitually assemble for public worship.

Oxford dictionary defines a church as a building used for public Christian worship, and Webster’s dictionary defines church as a building for public and especially Christian worship. Thus, use of the word church in the City Code implies the inclusion of only Christian religions, and potentially excludes all other religions or belief systems. Thus, it may be more inclusive to use the term religious institution to replace the word church throughout the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that all religions are included as permitted uses.

There is no common definition for a religious institution, but an institution is defined as an organization founded for a religious, educational, professional, or social purpose, or, a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture by the Oxford and Webster’s dictionaries, respectively.

The Planning Division recommends that the word “church” be replaced with “religious institution” in all instances across the Zoning Ordinance. This would make religious institutions permitted in the B1, B2, B2B, B2C, and B4 zones, while also being permitted under a Special Land Use Permit in the R1A, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, O1, P, MX, TZ2 and TZ3 zones.

Religious institution should also be added as a defined term in Article 9, section 9.02. A suggested definition:

Religious Institution: A building housing an organization founded on an established religion, such as a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other house of worship.

The use of the term religious institution as defined above to replace the word church throughout the Zoning Ordinance will ensure that all religions are addressed consistently and included as permitted uses in the appropriate zone district(s).

Suggested Action:

At this time, the Planning Division requests that the Planning Board conduct a public hearing on the following proposed amendments to Chapter 126 – Zoning – of the City code:

1. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.03, R1A (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 2. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.05, R1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 3. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.07, R2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 4. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.09, R3 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 5. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.11, R4 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 6. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.13, R5 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 7. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.15, R6 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 8. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.17, R7 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 9. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.21, O1 (OFFICE) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 10. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.25, P (PARKING) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 11. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.27, B1 (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE PERMITTED USES, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 12. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.29, B2 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE PERMITTED USES, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 13. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.31, B2B (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE PERMITTED USES, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 14. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.33, B2C (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE PERMITTED USES, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 15. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.37, B4 (BUSINESS-RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE PERMITTED USES, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 16. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.39, MX (MIXED USE) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 17. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.43, TZ2 (TRANSITION ZONE) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 18. TO AMEND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.45, TZ3 (TRANSITION ZONE) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 19. TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, SECTION 3.07 – PERMITTED USES AND SPECIAL USES, TO REMOVE CHURCH IN THE LAND USE MATRIX; 20. TO AMEND ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4.45 (G)(5)(a)(ii) and (iii) – PK-01 GENERAL PARKING STANDARDS – TO AMEND THE METHODS OF PROVIDING PARKING FACILITIES, TO REPLACE CHURCH WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 21. TO AMEND ARTICLE 4, TO AMEND TABLE A – REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES, TO REPLACE CHURCH WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 22. TO AMEND ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4.66 (A)(1)(STORAGE AND DISPLAY STANDARDS), TO REPLACE CHURCH WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 23. TO AMEND ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4.84 TU-01 (A)(2)(TEMPORARY USE STANDARDS), TO REPLACE CHURCH OR OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITY WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 24. TO AMEND ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4.86 TU-03 (A)(1)(TEMPORARY USE STANDARDS), TO REPLACE CHURCH WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 25. TO AMEND ARTICLE 7, SECTION 7.21 (A)(1) – REQUIREMENTS, TO REPLACE CHURCHES WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS; 26. TO AMEND ARTICLE 9, SECTION 9.02 – DEFINITIONS, TO ADD A DEFINITION OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; 27. TO AMEND APPENDIX A, LAND USE MATRIX, TO MERGE CHURCH AND CHURCH AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION ROWS INTO ONE ROW UNDER RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION; AND 28. TO AMEND APPENDIX B, INDEX, TO ELIMINATE INDEXED PAGES WHERE CHURCH NO LONGER EXISTS, ADD RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND CORRESPONDING PAGE NUMBERS.

ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.03, R1A (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.03 R1A (Single-Family Residential) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT

• Assisted living • Church • Continued care retirement community • Independent hospice facility • Independent senior living • Medical rehabilitation facility • Parking (accessory) – public, off-street • Philanthropic use • Public utility building • Publicly owned building • Religious institution • School – private • Skilled nursing facility

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.05, R1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.05 R1 (Single-Family Residential) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.07, R2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.07 R2 (Single-Family Residential) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.09, R3 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.09 R3 (Single-Family Residential) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.11, R4 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.11 R4 (Two-Family Residential) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT

• Assisted living • Church • Continued care retirement community • Independent hospice facility • Independent senior living • Parking (accessory) – public, off-street • Public utility building • Publicly owned building • Religious institution • School – private • Skilled nursing facility

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.13, R5 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.13 R5 (Multiple-Family Residential) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.15, R6 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.15 R6 (Multiple-Family Residential) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT

• Assisted living • Church • Community center • Continued care retirement community • Independent hospice facility • Independent senior living • Public utility building • Publicly owned building • Recreational club • Religious institution • School – private • Skilled nursing facility • Social club

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.17, R7 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.17 R7 (Multiple-Family Residential) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT

• Assisted living • Church • Community center • Continued care retirement community • Independent hospice facility • Independent senior living • Parking – off-street • Public utility building • Publicly owned building • Recreational club • Religious institution • School – private • Skilled nursing facility • Social club • Special-purpose housing*

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.21, O1 (OFFICE) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.21 O1 (Office) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT

• Assisted living • Bistro (only permitted in the Triangle District)* • Church • Continued care retirement community • Independent hospice facility • Independent senior living • Religious institution • Skilled nursing facility

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.25, P (PARKING) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.25 P (Parking) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT

• Assisted living • Bistro (only permitted in the Triangle District)* • Church • Community center • Continued care retirement community • Independent hospice facility • Independent senior living • Parking – off-street • Publicly owned building • Public utility building • Recreational club • Religious institution • School - private • Skilled nursing facility • Social club

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.27, B1 (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE PERMITTED USES, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.27 B1 (Neighborhood Business) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

INSTITUTIONAL PERMITTED USES

• Church • Community center • Government office • Government use • Religious institution • School – private • School – public • Social club

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.29, B2 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE PERMITTED USES, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.29 B2 (General Business) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

INSTITUTIONAL PERMITTED USES

• Church • Community center • Garage - public • Government office • Government use • Loading facility – off-street • Parking facility – off-street • Religious institution • School – private • School – public • Social club

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.31, B2B (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE PERMITTED USES, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.31 B2B (General Business) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

INSTITUTIONAL PERMITTED USES

• Church • Community center • Garage – public • Government office • Government use • Loading facility – off-street • Parking facility – off-street • Religious institution • School – private • School – public • Social club

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.33, B2C (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE PERMITTED USES, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.33 B2C (General Business) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

INSTITUTIONAL PERMITTED USES

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.37, B4 (BUSINESS-RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE PERMITTED USES, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.37 B4 (Business-Residential) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

INSTITUTIONAL PERMITTED USES

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.39, MX (MIXED USE) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.39 MX (Mixed Use) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.43, TZ2 (TRANSITION ZONE) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.43 TZ2 (Transition Zone) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT

• Any permitted commercial use with interior floor area over 3,000 sq. ft. per tenant • Assisted living • Bakery • Bank/credit union with drive-thru • church and religious institution • Coffee shop • Delicatessen • Dry cleaner • Essential services • Food and drink establishment • Government office/use • Grocery store • Independent hospice facility • Independent senior living • Parking structure • Religious institution • School – private and public • Skilled nursing facility • Specialty food shop

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 2.45, TZ3 (TRANSITION ZONE) DISTRICT INTENT, PERMITTED USES, AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND THE USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, TO REMOVE CHURCH AND REPLACE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 2.45 TZ3 (Transition Zone) District Intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Uses

USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT

• Any permitted commercial use with interior floor area over 3,000 sq. ft. per tenant • Assisted living • Bakery • Bank/credit union with drive-thru • church and religious institution • Coffee shop • Delicatessen • Dry cleaning • Essential services • Food and drink establishment • Government office/use • Grocery store • Independent hospice facility • Independent senior living • Parking structure • Religious institution • School – private and public • Skilled nursing facility • Specialty food shop

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND SECTION 3.07, PERMITTED USES AND SPECIAL USES, TO AMEND TABLE 3.07 - TRIANGLE OVERLAY DISTRICT LAND USE MATRIX, TO REMOVE CHURCH IN THE LAND USE MATRIX

Section 3.07, Permitted Uses and Special Uses, Table 3.07 – Triangle Overlay District Land Use Matrix

Land Use Zones on Regulating Plan Institutional ASF3 MU3 MU5 MU7 Church S S S S College - P P P Government office P P P P Government use P P P P Essential services P P P P Parking – off-street A A A A Parking structure A S P P Religious institution S S S S School – private P P P P School – public P P P P Social club - S P P

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4.45 – PK-01 GENERAL PARKING STANDARDS, SECTION G(5)(a)(ii) and (iii) TO AMEND THE METHODS OF PROVIDING PARKING FACILITIES, TO REPLACE CHURCH WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 4.45 – PK-01 General Parking Standards

G. METHODS OF PROVIDING PARKING FACILITIES

5.(a)

i. The maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) in the parking assessment districts shall not exceed 100%, except that the maximum usable floor area may be increased up to 200% by providing 1 parking space for every 300 square feet over the maximum 100% FAR. ii. Churches Religious institutions in the parking assessment district are exempt from this maximum FAR provision. iii. In the case of churches religious institutions and buildings occupied by nonprofit organizations providing services to the general public, by securing permission to use the parking facilities of other buildings within 500 feet of the church religious institution or community center building when such other building is not normally open, in use, or in operation during the principal hours of use of such church religious institution or community center building. Permission to use such other parking facilities shall be evidenced in writing for a period of not less than 1 year. In the case of nonprofit organizations, the parking to be shared must be in a parking or commercial district

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4.46, TO AMEND TABLE A – REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES, TO REPLACE CHURCH WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 4.46 – PK-02 Off-Street Parking Spaces Required, Table A – Required Off- Street Parking Spaces

Land Use Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required Public Assembly Uses Church Religious institution, school and 1 space for each 6 seats other place of public assembly with fixed seats Church Religious Institution, school and 1 space for each six person of capacity as other place of public assembly without fixed determined by the Fire Marshal seats Theater 1 space for each 3 seats

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4.66, SD-01, STORAGE AND DISPLAY STANDARDS, TO REPLACE CHURCHES WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS

Section 4.66, SD-01, Storage and Display Standards

A. SALE OF CHRISTMAS TREES 1. Other provisions of this ordinance notwithstanding, Christmas trees may be stored, displayed and sold without the use of a building or other structure by churches religious institutions, schools or other nonprofit, organizations on property owned by such institution or organization.

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4.84, TU-01 - TEMPORARY USE STANDARDS, TO REPLACE CHURCH OR OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITY WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 4.84, TU-01

A. PERMITTED TEMPORARY USES: Subject to the specific regulations that follow and to the other applicable regulations of the district in which the use is permitted, the following temporary uses are permitted: 1. Temporary office buildings: Such buildings are allowed for the purpose of conducting business for a permitted use in association with a development project under building permit or granted preliminary Site Plan Approval subject to conformance with Chapter 22 of the Birmingham City Code. 2. Ecclesiastical Homeless Shelter Programs: Such use is permitted when it is a temporary accessory use to a church or other religious facility religious institution with the following requirements: a. Such a use shall be wholly accommodated inside a church or other religious facility religious institution. b. Such a use shall be permitted for a period not to exceed 7 consecutive days upon inspection by the Fire Marshal and Building Official. c. No more than 1 such event is permitted from the same facility in any 12-month period. d. No more than 30 overnight guests may be accommodated on any 1 night within the approved weeklong program.

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4.86, TU-03 - TEMPORARY USE STANDARDS, TO REPLACE CHURCH WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 4.86, TU-03

A. PERMITTED TEMPORARY USES: Subject to the specific regulations that follow and to the other applicable regulations of the district in which the use is permitted, the following temporary use is permitted: 1. Seasonal plant sales: Any church religious institution, school or other nonprofit organization may conduct seasonal plant sales on property owned by such institution or organization. a. Such sales shall be limited to a period not to exceed 30 days. b. Plant displays need not comply with the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The displays shall meet the requirements of Section 4.87. c. All refuse or debris resulting from such sales shall be wholly contained on the premises and removed from the premises after the end of the sale. d. Christmas tree sales require a license as defined in Section 26-88 of the Birmingham City Code.

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND ARTICLE 7, SECTION 7.21 – REQUIREMENTS, TO REPLACE CHURCH WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 7.21, Requirements

A. The City Commission shall approve a request for a regulated use if it determines that all of the following standards are met: 1. The use will be compatible with adjacent uses of land, considering the proximity of dwellings, churches religious institutions, schools, public structures, and other places of public gatherings. 2. The use will not adversely impact the capabilities of public services and facilities including sewers, water, schools, transportation, and the ability of the City to supply such services. 3. The use will not adversely impact any cultural or historic landmarks. 4. The use is in compliance with all other requirements of this Zoning Ordinance. 5. The use is in compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND ARTICLE 9, SECTION 9.02 – DEFINITIONS, TO ADD A DEFINITION OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Section 9.02, Definitions

Religious Institution: A building housing an organization founded on an established religion, such as a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other house of worship.

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND APPENDIX A, LAND USE MATRIX, TO MERGE CHURCH AND CHURCH AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION ROWS INTO ONE ROW UNDER RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

PP R1A R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 O1 O2 P B1 B2 B2B B2C B3 B4 MX TZ1 TZ2 TZ3 Institutional Auditorium P ------Bus/trail passenger station ------S S S P - P - - - and waiting area Cemetery P ------Church - S S S S S S S S - S - S P P P P - P S - S S Church and religious ------S S institution College ------S - - - Community center ------S S - - - S P P P P - P - - - - ………. Religious institution - S S S S S S S S - S - S P P P P - P S - S S

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND APPENDIX B, INDEX, TO ELIMINATE INDEXED PAGES WHERE CHURCH NO LONGER EXISTS, ADD RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND CORRESPONDING PAGE NUMBERS

Appendix B, Index

Church: 2-4; 2-6; 2-8; 2-10; 2-12; 2-14; 2-16; 2-18; 2-22; 2-26; 2-28; 2-30; 2-32; 2-34; 2-38; 2-40; 3-10; 4-12; 4-32; 4-35; 4-42; 4-50; 4-51; 7-10; A-4.

Religious institution: 2-4; 2-6; 2-8; 2-10; 2-12; 2-14; 2-16; 2-18; 2-22; 2-26; 2-28; 2-30; 2-32; 2-34; 2-38; 2-40; 3-10; 4-32; 4-35; 4-42; 4-50; 4-51; 7-10; A-4.

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, Clerk

MEMORANDUM

Planning Division Date: August 3, 2018

To: Planning Board

From: Nicholas Dupuis, Planning Intern

Approved: Jana L. Ecker, Planning Director

Subject: Triangle District – Additional Building Height

In Birmingham’s Triangle District, developers are required to maintain a maximum building height depending on the zoning district being built upon. However, unique to the Triangle District, there are a series of provisions that allow for the addition of building height if completed. Section 3.08(E) of the Zoning Ordinance reads as follows:

E. Additional Building Height: Buildings or portions of buildings that are 100 feet or more from a single-family residential zoning district may have the additional building height (in number of stories and/or feet of height) noted in Section 3.08B, Section 3.08C, and Section 3.08D where 2 or more of the following are provided as part of the development. Additional stories shall be stepped back at a 45-degree angle from the top story allowed by right without the height bonus. 1. A multi-level parking structure that offers parking available to the public at the rate of one parking space available to the public for every 300 square feet of building floor area allowed in the additional stories. Where additional building height is proposed without additional stories, then the parking shall be based upon the building floor area in the top floor. The applicant may provide payment-in-lieu to the City for construction of parking in a public parking deck at an offsite location at the rate of $15,000 per parking space. 2. Dedication of an improved public plaza with an area that is at least equal to 25% of the additional floor area of building area allowed in the additional stories. Where additional building height is proposed without additional stories, then public plaza space shall be based upon 25% of the building floor area on the top floor. The location and design of the plaza shall be approved by the Planning Board and shall be in accordance with the Triangle District Urban Design Plan. 3. A mixed use building that provides residential dwelling units above first-floor commercial where a minimum of 50% of the buildings floor area is residential. 4. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building design, accredited based upon the rating system of the United States Green Building Council. 5. Transfer of development rights for additional floor area that zoning would permit on a site containing an historic building or resource designated under Section 127 of the Birmingham Code. The development rights shall be dedicated through recording a conservation easement on the designated historic resource, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Historic District Commission. F. MU3, MU5 and MU7 Front Yard Building Setback Exceptions: In the MU3, MU5

The City has recently discussed the dollar amount in the first requisite item option for a height bonus in the Triangle District shown in Section 3.08(E)(1) noted in bold above. The City understands that due to geography, number of parking levels, façade treatments, number of parking spaces, inflation, market conditions and other factors, the price of constructing structured parking may increase as time goes on. In 2007, when this provision was added, the City deemed the amount of $15,000 per space to be enough money to satisfy the first item in the additional height bonus section.

However, a study performed by Carl Walker, Inc. determined that the national median cost per parking space in the United States in 2017 was $19,700 per space, and $59.06 per square foot. Historical Carl Walker, Inc. studies supply these figures:

Year Median cost per space Percent Change 2014 $18,038 2.9 % increase 2015 $18,599 3.1 % increase 2016 $19,037 3.4 % increase 2017 $19,700 3.5 % increase 2018 $20,330 3.2 % increase

Using the average percent change from 2014-2017, it can be estimated that the cost of a structured parking space might increase by at least 3.2 percent in 2018, bringing the national median cost per parking space to $20,330. In an effort to stay current with the pricing trends in the parking structure construction market, the City of Birmingham would like to update its ordinance to reflect a yearly percentage increase in the figure presented in the ordinance. The proposed language of Section 3.08 (E)(1) may be amended as follows:

1. A multi-level parking structure that offers parking available to the public at the rate of one parking space available to the public for every 300 square feet of building floor area allowed in the additional stories. Where additional building height is proposed without additional stories, then the parking shall be based upon the building floor area in the top floor. The applicant may provide payment- in-lieu to the City for construction of parking in a public parking deck at an offsite location. at the rate of $15,000 per parking space. Parking rates will be calculated as follows: a. The rate of $20,330 per space to match the national median cost per above-ground structured parking space in 2018. b. Starting July 1 2019, the rate of payment per parking space shall be increased by 3 percent each year.

At this time, the Planning Division requests that the Planning Board conduct a public hearing on the following proposed amendments to Chapter 126 – Zoning – of the City Code:

1. TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, SECTION 3.08 (E)(1), ADDITIONAL BUILDING HEIGHT, TO AMEND THE OPTION ITEMS TO GAIN ADDITIONAL BUILDING HEIGHT/STORIES BY AMENDING THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PARKING AMOUNT TO ADJUST OVER TIME.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

To set a public hearing date of September 12, 2018 to consider amending Article 3, Section 3.08 (E)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to adjust the payment in lieu of parking amount over time. ORDINANCE NO.______

THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ORDAINS:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 126, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM:

TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, SECTION 3.08 (E), ADDITIONAL BUILDING HEIGHT, TO AMEND THE OPTION ITEMS TO GAIN ADDITIONAL BUILDING HEIGHT/STORIES

Section 3.08 (E) Additional Building Height

ORDAINED this ______day of ______, 2018 to become effective 7 days after publication.

______

Andrew Harris, Mayor

______

Cherilynn Mynsberge, City Clerk April 2014

• Cost Outlook 2014 • Project Highlights • Message from the President

Central Piedmont Community College - Charlotte, NC

Parking Structure Cost Outlook for 2014 By Gary Cudney, P.E. - President/CEO

It’s that time of year Engineering News-Record (ENR). The location National Median again when Carl Walker, factor is taken from the yearly edition of the RS Parking Structure Inc. prepares a statistical Means Building Construction Cost Data. Applying Construction Cost 2014 analysis of parking these two factors to actual construction cost $18,038 per space structure construction data adjusts the cost to a current national basis $54.05 per square foot costs and provides a and from that we determine the national median, market forecast for the remainder of the year. which can then be re-adjusted to reflect a median construction cost in almost every American city. At Carl Walker, Inc., we specialize in parking structure design, structural engineering, parking As of March 2014, our statistical data indicates studies, parking operations consulting, and that the median construction cost for a new restoration of parking structures, plazas, facades, parking structure is $18,038 per space and $54.05 and other buildings. Thus, we maintain a database per square foot. This is the first time the median of completed parking structure projects and have cost has exceeded $18,000 per space, increasing developed a methodology to analyze the historical 2.9% from 2013 when the median cost was $17,533 cost information to assist our clients and the industry. per space based on our historical database. This relatively minor increase is reflective of Our construction cost database contains a list the fact that while construction markets are of hundreds of completed parking structures beginning to recover, material price increases of various sizes, scopes and locations. The cost were very low due to foreign competition and data is assigned a factor based on the time of labor rates were stable as the competitive bidding and location. The time factor is based market place continued. The table below on the Building Cost Index (BCI), published by lists the 2014 median cost in various U.S. cities.

1 800.FYI.PARK carlwalker.com (continued from Page 1)

PARKING INDUSTRY CONSTRUCTION Median Parking Structure ECONOMIC FORECAST According to McGraw Hill Construction’s 2014 Construction Costs 2014 forecast “we will see 2014 as another year of measured expansion for the construction industry.”1 Further, they report that while the construction City Index Cost/Space Cost/SF spending in the institutional sector (higher education, hospitals, government) industry is down Atlanta 87.5 $15,783 $47.29 about 32% below 2008, the “five-year decline for Baltimore 92.8 $16,739 $50.15 the institutional building market is finally reaching its end” with a slight 2% increase projected for 2014.1 Boston 117.6 $21,212 $63.56 Charlotte 80.8 $14,575 $43.67 Digging out of the deep construction industry Chicago 117.6 $21,212 $63.56 recession has been sluggish and hampered by uncertainty. After a nearly 50% plummet Cleveland 99.4 $17,930 $53.72 in volume in the non-residential building Denver 93.3 $16,829 $50.42 market, and very slow growth for the past five Dallas 85.2 $15,368 $46.05 years, current predictions by industry experts point to greater optimism for 2014 and 2015: Detroit 102.8 $18,543 $55.56 Houston 86.6 $15,621 $46.80 • The American Institute of Architects (AIA) chief Indianapolis 92.6 $16,703 $50.05 economist Kermit Baker, PhD stated that “2014 Kansas City 103.8 $18,723 $56.10 looks to be a better year with non-residential building activity increasing 5.8%” and that Los Angeles 107.3 $19,355 $57.99 the “recovery will continue into 2015 with Miami 87.6 $15,801 $47.34 spending increasing 8%.” While there has been Minneapolis 109.0 $19,661 $58.91 fluctuation and regional differences in the AIA Architectural Billings Index (ABI), Baker further Nashville 87.5 $15,783 $47.29 reports that the “ABI has risen in vast majority of New York 131.1 $23,648 $70.85 the last 16 months. With such sustained growth Philadelphia 113.9 $20,545 $61.56 in design activity, continued improvement in construction activity will follow suit”.2 Phoenix 88.7 $16,000 $47.94 Unfortunately, the AIA Architectural Billings Pittsburgh 102.3 $18,453 $55.29 Index for March 2014 of 48.8 indicates the year Portland 99.1 $17,875 $53.56 is getting off to a slower start than expected.3 Richmond 86.7 $15,639 $46.86 • The AIA also compiles a Consensus Construction St. Louis 103.1 $18,597 $55.72 Forecast based on predictions of seven leading San Diego 104.1 $18,777 $56.26 non-residential construction forecasters in the San Francisco 122.5 $22,096 $66.21 U.S. According to the Consensus Construction Forecast, the non-residential construction Seattle 103.5 $18,669 $55.94 industry is expecting better growth than Washington, D.C. 97.2 $17,533 $52.53 the past five years, with increases in activity projected for the office sector of 9.2% (2014) and 10.8% (2015), healthcare sector National Average 100 $18,038 $54.05 of 5.2% (2014) and 7.8% (2015), education sector of 2.8% (2014) and 5.8% (2015).2

2 800.FYI.PARK carlwalker.com (continued from Page 2)

• Gilbane Building Company, in their Market geographic area.8 Conditions in Construction report, predicts a 7.4% upturn in non-residential building spending SUMMARY in 2014. Construction cost escalation will be The projected improvement in the architectural higher than normal as spending continues to firm backlog reported by the Architectural Billings increase. Labor and material costs will increase Index (ABI) and the record-high Construction as fees and margins expand 4-7% for 2014 and Industry Confidence Index (CICI) are positive 5-8% for 2015. Gilbane also reported that the signs for the construction and parking industries. “construction workforce is still 25% below the In absence of any major economic event or peak and it will take a minimum of four more additional federal government budget/debt years to return to peak levels.”4 ceiling debacles, construction activity should be at the highest levels since the market collapse. • Turner Construction’s Turner Building Cost Index rose 4.65% during 2013. Their 2013 With the improved construction activity, project Fourth Quarter Forecast states that “growing costs are expected to escalate to a greater level demand is fueling optimism in the design than the small projected increase in material and and construction industries. Private sector labor costs would indicate. Further, shortages of building construction work continues to grow, skilled construction workers who left the industry offsetting reductions in the public sector. Labor during the downturn could restrain market growth costs and material prices are inching up as and raise costs. Thus, there may be a small bubble demand increases.”5 Additionally, the Turner of pent-up demand that could spring loose as 2014 First Quarter Forecast indicates a 0.80% owners seek to have their projects bid ahead of increase in costs for the quarter, a “reflection the competition. of constrained availability of labor, stability in commodity prices and competition in the Carl Walker’s parking professionals will be happy market.”6 to assist with budgeting of your next parking structure. If you have questions or would like • The Engineering News-Record (ENR) recently specific cost information for your area, contact reported their first quarter 2014 Construction Gary Cudney at [email protected] or Industry Confidence Index (CICI) increased 800-FYI-PARK (800-394-7275). to a record 72 points on a scale of 100, which represents a growing market. The vast majority References: of the 414 executives of large construction and 1. “Housing Leads Construction Industry to Moderate Growth in 2014, According to McGraw Hill Construction,” McGraw Hill design firms responding to the survey believe Construction Press Release, October 25, 2013. that the market is stable and growing.7 The ENR 2. “After a Year of Moving Sideways, Nonresidential Building Activity also reported “the U.S. Economy’s CICI rating is Poised to Resume Recovery in 2014,” by Kermit Baker, PhD, The five points lower than the overall construction American Institute of Architects AIArchitect, January 24, 2014. market’s rating, showing continuing economic 3. “Architectural Billings Index Mired in Slowdown,” Press Release by Scott Frank, The American Institute of Architects, April 23, 2014. concerns”.7 4. “Market Conditions in Construction – December 2013,” by Gilbane Building Company. • Dale Denda, Parking Market Research Co.’s 5. “Turner Building Cost Index – 2013 Fourth Quarter Forecast,” Turner Director of Research, presented at the Parking Construction Company. Industry Exhibition (PIE) in March 2014 on 6. “Turner Building Cost Index – 2014 First Quarter Forecast,” Turner the parking structure construction market. Construction Company. He estimated an 8.5% increase in project 7. “Industry Executives Expect Growth to Accelerate in 2014,” by commitments/starts in 2013 over 2012 and Gary J. Tulacz, Engineering News – Record, March 24/31, 2014. predicts about a 5-7% gain nationally in 2014. 8. “Behind the National Forecast – Multi-Year Trends in Local Markets The parking structure construction market Parking Garage Construction,” by Dale F. Denda, Director of strength will vary greatly by regional and local Research, Parking Market Research Company, Parking Industry Exhibition (PIE) – March, 2014.

3 800.FYI.PARK carlwalker.com (continued from Page 3)

PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS

PARKING STUDY AT LSU HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER WRAPS UP

NEW ORLEANS, LA - Carl Walker, Inc. recently wrapped up a parking study at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center (LSUHSC), assessing current and future parking needs as well as providing options for improving the management and operation of existing parking supplies. Another key objective was to maximize the effective utilization of existing parking resources. Opportunities to add on- and off-street surface parking spaces were identified and cost estimates of proposed options were prepared.

CARL WALKER, INC. EXPLORES FEASIBILITY OF UNDERGROUND PARKING IN SOUTH ARENA DISTRICT

GRAND RAPIDS, MI - The City of Grand Rapids (City) and Downtown Grand Rapids Inc. (DGRI)(DDA) retained Carl Walker, Inc. to explore the feasibility of underground parking in the South Arena District, an area currently occupied by four publicly owned surface parking lots. The underground parking analysis was the recommendation of the recently completed Arena South Visioning Plan, which recommends reclaiming scarce downtown land for people by improving pedestrian connections, adding green space, and supporting mixed-use development that provides residential, office and commercial uses. The study will help the city, DGRI, and developers decide whether the anticipated higher financial returns and improved downtown experience for pedestrians will justify the added cost of underground parking.

April 2014 Issue MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT Our current feature article, users. However, if enhancements that are becoming Parking Structure Cost Outlook more common nowadays are used, such as wider for 2014, indicates 2014 and parking spaces, fancier façade treatments, LED lights 2015 should have better growth with computerized occupancy sensor controls, 75- to than recent years. However, 100-year service life, painted ceilings, underground the first quarter was slower than construction, advanced sustainability features (solar expected, perhaps due to the panels, storm water detention, lighting, green roofs, harsh winter many of us experienced. Hopefully, the etc.), parking space guidance, etc. then costs will likely economist’s predictions will come true this summer. exceed the median. However, our understanding of project costs means we can design a parking structure to whatever the project budget allows! The median national parking structure cost is now $18,038 per space, based on average national construction costs, and will vary depending on We welcome the opportunity to assist you in geographic location and project features. evaluating plans for parking development Our historical cost database goes back over 30 and how to achieve the best balance between years when our firm was founded. Interestingly, function, aesthetics, first-cost, and life-cycle costs! more recent projects have a higher median cost than older projects as the “quality” of many parking structures has improved. Projects in the median cost range typically include many amenities and features desired by owners and Gary Cudney, P.E.

4 800.FYI.PARK carlwalker.com Park Place Parking Structure, Missoula, Montana Parking Structure Cost Outlook for 2015 By Gary Cudney, P.E., President/CEO

Carl Walker is pleased to provide the cost to a current national basis and from that we determine the National Median its annual statistical analysis of national median. The national median can then be re-adjusted to Parking Structure parking structure construction reflect a median construction cost in almost every city in America. Construction Cost 2015 costs and new parking structure $18,599 per space market forecast, albeit a little As of March 2015, our statistical data indicates that the median $55.66 per square foot later than usual this year. At construction cost for a new parking structure is $18,599 per space Carl Walker, we specialize in parking structure design, structural and $55.66 per square foot, increasing 3.1% from March, 2014 engineering, parking studies, parking operations consulting, when the median cost was $18,038 per space based on our historical and restoration of parking structures, plazas, facades, and other database. This relatively minor increase is reflective of the fact buildings. We maintain a database of completed parking structure that while construction markets are in a recovery, material price projects and have developed a methodology to analyze the increases were very low due to foreign competition, fuel prices were historical cost information to assist our clients and the industry. considerably lower, and labor rates were stable as the competitive market place continued. The following table lists the 2015 Our construction cost database contains hundreds of completed median parking structure construction cost in various U.S. cities. parking structure projects of varying size, scope, and geographic location. For this forecast, we only omit the cost of parking It should be noted that the construction cost data does not structures that are completely below grade, since the cost of such include costs for items such as land acquisition, architectural structures is much higher. The cost data is assigned factors based and engineering fees, environmental evaluations, materials on the time of bidding and location of the parking structure. The testing, special inspections, geotechnical borings and time factor is based on the Building Cost Index (BCI), published by recommendations, financing, owner administrative and legal, Engineering News-Record (ENR). The location factor is taken from or other project soft costs. Soft costs are typically about 15% the yearly edition of the RS Means Building Construction Cost Data. to 20% of construction costs, but can be higher for owners Applying these two factors to actual construction cost data adjusts who allocate their internal costs directly to the project. MEDIAN CONSTRUCTION COST

Median Parking Structure I am often asked what features are included within the “median Construction Costs construction cost”. A median cost parking structure typically includes such features as: 2015 • 8’ 6” wide parking spaces • Precast concrete superstructure City Index Cost/Space Cost/SF • Attractive precast concrete façade with basic reveal pattern • Glass backed elevators and unenclosed stairs clad with glass curtain wall to the exterior Atlanta 87.5 $16,274 $48.70 • Basic wayfinding and signage Baltimore 92.6 $17,222 $51.54 • Shallow spread footing foundations Boston 118.1 $21,965 $65.74 • All above grade construction Charlotte 82.2 $15,288 $45.75 • Open parking structure with natural ventilation without Chicago 117.2 $21,797 $65.23 mechanical ventilation or fire sprinklers Cleveland 99.6 $18,524 $55.44 • Little or no grade level commercial space Denver 92.5 $17,204 $51.49 • Basic parking access and revenue control system • Energy efficient fluorescent lighting Dallas 85.5 $15,902 $47.59 Detroit 102.9 $19,138 $57.28 The construction cost of the parking structure would be higher Houston 86.8 $16,144 $48.31 than the median if it includes such enhanced features as: Indianapolis 92.9 $17,278 $51.71 • 9’ 0” wide parking spaces for better user comfort Kansas City 103.3 $19,212 $57.50 • Cast-in-place post-tensioned concrete superstructure for Los Angeles 107.2 $19,938 $59.67 lower maintenance Miami 88.2 $16,404 $49.09 • Attractive façade with precast, brick, metal panels, and other materials Minneapolis 108.9 $20,254 $60.62 • Green Garage Certification following the Green Parking Nashville 87.8 $16,330 $48.87 Council standards New York 131.8 $24,513 $73.36 • Energy efficient LED lighting with occupancy and photocell Philadelphia 114.5 $21,295 $63.73 computer controls • Custom wayfinding and signage system Phoenix 88.1 $16,385 $49.04 • Storm water management including on-site retention/ Pittsburgh 102.0 $18,970 $56.77 detention Portland 99.5 $18,506 $55.38 • Deep foundations, such as caissons or piling Richmond 87.1 $16,199 $48.48 • Below grade construction • Enclosed stair towers due to local code requirements St. Louis 102.7 $19,101 $57.16 • Enclosed parking structure without natural ventilation San Diego 104.5 $19,435 $58.17 where mechanical ventilation and fire sprinklers are San Francisco 122.7 $22,820 $68.30 required Seattle 102.8 $19,119 $57.22 • Grade level commercial space • Mixed use development where the parking is integrated Washington, D.C. 97.1 $18,059 $54.05 with office, retail, residential, or other uses • State-of-the-art parking access and revenue control system National Average 100 $18,599 $55.66 • License plate recognition • Parking guidance system • Count system with variable message LED signs • Pay-on-foot stations • Wi-Fi and cellular services PARKING INDUSTRY CONSTRUCTION ECONOMIC FORECAST Additionally, the Turner 2015 First Quarter Forecast indicates a 1.09% increase in costs for the quarter and that “material Thankfully, the construction industry is in the midst of a sustained lead times have been extended due to increased demands recovery. In the parking industry, growth should be buoyed as the and a reduced availability of production facilities to support institutional sector (i.e. city governments, higher education, and those demands.”4 healthcare) returns to growth in construction spending. • The Engineering News-Record (ENR) recently reported their As the construction economy improves, escalation of first quarter 2015 Construction Industry Confidence Index construction costs and longer construction schedules can (CICI) increased to a record 78 points on a scale of 100, which be expected in many areas of the country due to labor shortages represents a growing market. The vast majority of the 305 in construction trades and professional positions andas executives of large construction and design firms responding construction companies increase margins that have been to the survey believe that the market is stable and growing depressed for more than five years. It is predicted that construction and will continue to pick up steam over the next 18 months.5 inflation could be approximately double consumer inflation!1 Predictions by industry experts point to increased levels of SUMMARY construction in all sectors for 2015 and 2016: The sustained improvement in the architectural firm backlog • The American Institute of Architects (AIA) chief economist reported by the Architectural Billings Index (ABI) and the record- Kermit Baker, PhD, stated that “For the coming year, prospects high Construction Industry Confidence Index (CICI) are positive look to continue to improve, with overall growth projected indicators for near term growth in the construction of parking to increase almost eight percent. Institutional activity is structures. In absence of any major political or economic event, expected to return to the positive column, with spending construction activity is forecasted to grow about 8% the next two gains of five percent.” While there has been fluctuation and years. regional differences in the AIA Architectural Billings Index (ABI), Baker further reports that “Since May of last year, ABI With the improved construction activity, project costs are scores have been very positive…with all of the major sectors expected to escalate to a greater level than the projected increase participating in the recovery”.2 in material and labor costs would indicate. Further, shortages of skilled construction workers who left the industry during the long • The AIA also compiles a Consensus Construction Forecast downturn could restrain market growth and raise costs. Because based on predictions of seven leading U.S. non-residential of these factors, Gilbane forecasts construction inflation will be construction forecasters in the U.S. The Consensus approximately double that of consumer inflation and in the 5% to 1 Construction Forecast indicates the non-residential building 8% range over the next two years. construction industry is expecting better growth than the past five years, with increases in activity projected for the The parking professionals at Carl Walker will be happy to assist office sector of 12.9% (2015) and 12.0% (2016), healthcare with budgeting of your next parking structure. If you have any sector of 4.7% (2015) and 6.2% (2016), education sector of questions or would like specific cost information for your area, 4.7% (2015) and 5.2% (2016).2 contact Gary Cudney at [email protected] or 800-FYI- PARK (800-394-7275). • Gilbane Building Company, in their Market Conditions in Construction report, reported a 6.8% increase in non- residential building construction in 2014 and they forecast a REFERENCES doubling of last year’s growth during 2015 to 14.0%! Gilbane also reports that labor and material costs will increase as fees, 1. “Market Conditions in Construction – December 2014,” by Gilbane Building margins, and material costs expand such that construction Company. escalation could increase 5% to 8% for 2015 and 2016.1 2. “Steady Construction Growth in the Forecast,” by Kermit Baker, PhD, The American Institute of Architects AIArchitect, January 24, 2014. • Turner Construction’s Turner Building Cost Index, which 3. “Turner Building Cost Index – 2014 Fourth Quarter Forecast,” Turner tracks construction cost escalation, rose 4.4% during 2014. Construction Company. Their 2014 Fourth Quarter Forecast states that “Higher 4. “Turner Building Cost Index – 2015 First Quarter Forecast,” Turner construction cost escalations in urban centers with increased Construction Company. construction activity, as well as selective mega-projects, are 5. “Industry Market Confidence Hits Record High,” by Gary J. Tulacz, Engineering driving the average domestic construction cost increases.”3 News – Record, March 24, 2015 Parking Structure Planning & Design At Carl Walker, parking is as much an art as it is a science. It is a structural challenge that skillfully blends parking and engineering concepts with innovative solutions designed to streamline and simplify a world in motion. Parking structures have unique characteristics that distinguish them from other buildings. As parking consultants, one of our strengths is an extensive background in planning and designing parking structures for virtually every use and for every type of client, and in each case intelligently balancing aesthetics, functionality, durability, and cost for maximum benefit to the owner, the user, and the environment. Over the years, our parking professionals and structural engineers have been responsible for more than 5,500 successful projects. We are “All Things Parking” and provide the entire range of parking design capabilities: • Structural Engineering • Lighting & Drainage • Feasibility & Site Analyses • Revenue, Security & Access Control Systems • Planning/Functional Design • Design/Build Scope Documents • Structural Engineering • Graphics & Wayfinding Systems • Sustainable Design • Owner’s Representative Services

Studies & Operations Consulting Parking is not simply about storing cars. It is about providing a valuable link in the transportation system between where you live and your destination. Whether that is a city center, the office, university, hospital, airport or an event, you want to get where you are going without inconvenience, interruptions and lost time. The Carl Walker team specializes in solving problems and providing successful solutions for real world applications. For any parking system to be successful, there needs to be a combination of visionary strategic planning, defined organizational goals and effective management. Carl Walker provides comprehensive downtown, campus, and transportation planning services, along with organizational assessments and policy development assistance for a wide range of client types. We understand how planning is supported by strong management and organizational success. We can help make the most of your parking investment with enhanced customer service, proper technology applications, maximizing revenue, and implementing practical, common sense policies that actually work. • Management & Operational Reviews • Feasibility Studies • Organizational & Policy Assessment • Technology Assessments • Supply & Demand Analysis • Revenue & Rate Analysis • Transportation & Parking Master Plans • Enforcement Policy & Operations • Marketing, Branding & Customer Service

Restoration Engineering Carl Walker provides restoration engineering for existing parking structures, but our expertise does not end there. Ourgroupof Restoration Specialists is knowledgeable and experienced in the evaluation and repair of a variety of structures, including building facades/enclosures, supported plaza systems, tunnels, bridges, stadiums, etc. Carl Walker’s restoration specialists help clients understand the condition of their facilities, assess repair and maintenance options, and design and facilitate the restoration program. Our goal is to work with our clients to develop a balanced restoration program to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the structure as well as the functional and operational goals of a facility. Program Development Evaluation Services Restoration Engineering • Captal Improvement Plan • Structural Analysis • Repair/Rehabilitation Development • Forensic Investigation • Leak Mitigation • Life Cycle Cost Analysis • Condition Assessment • Corrosion Protection • Maintenance Manual Preparation »» Parking Garage Survey • Building Envelope Repair • Due Diligence Review »» Façade/Building Envelope Survey • Structural Strengthening • Public Private Partnerships »» Plaza Leaking/Waterproofing Review & Adaptive Reuse

Carl Walker, Inc. 800.394.7275 www.carlwalker.com Arena Place, Grand Rapids, MI | Four level cast-in-place post-tensioned concrete parking structure with grade level commercial space and constructed beneath multistory residential and office. Parking Structure Cost Outlook for 2017 By Gary Cudney, P.E., President/CEO

Carl Walker is pleased to construction cost data adjusts the cost to a current national National Median provide its annual statistical basis and from that we determine the national median. Parking Structure analysis of parking structure The national median can then be re-adjusted to reflect a Construction Cost 2017 construction costs and new median construction cost in almost every city in America. $19,700 per space parking structure market $59.06 per square foot forecast. At Carl Walker, As of March 2017, our statistical data indicates that the we specialize in parking structure design, structural median construction cost for a new parking structure is engineering, parking studies, parking operations $19,700 per space and $59.06 per square foot, increasing consulting, and restoration of parking structures, plazas, 3.5% from March 2016, when the median cost was facades, and other buildings. We maintain a database $19,037 per space based on our historical database. This of completed parking structure projects and have relatively minor increase is reflective of the fact that while developed a methodology to analyze the historical construction markets are growing, material price increases cost information to assist our clients and the industry. were very low due to foreign competition, low fuel prices, and labor rates were stable even as the market ramped Our construction cost database contains hundreds of up. The table on the following page lists the 2017 median completed parking structure projects of varying size, scope, parking structure construction cost in various U.S. cities. and geographic location. For this forecast, we only omit the cost of parking structures that are completely below It should be noted that the construction cost data does not grade, since the cost of such structures is much higher. include costs for items such as land acquisition, architectural The cost data is assigned factors based on the time of and engineering fees, environmental evaluations, materials bidding and location of the parking structure. The time testing, special inspections, geotechnical borings and factor is based on the Building Cost Index (BCI), published recommendations, financing, owner administrative and legal, by Engineering News-Record (ENR). The location factor is or other project soft costs. Soft costs are typically about 15% taken from the yearly edition of the RS Means Building to 20% of construction costs, but can be higher for owners Construction Cost Data. Applying these two factors to actual who allocate their internal costs directly to the project.

800-FYI-PARK | carlwalker.com Parking Structure Cost Outlook for 2017

Median Parking Structure MEDIAN CONSTRUCTION COST I am often asked what features are included within the Construction Costs 2017 “median construction cost”. A median cost parking structure City Index Cost/Space Cost/SF typically includes such features as: • 8’ 6” to 8’ 9” wide parking spaces Atlanta 88.5 $17,430 $52.27 • Precast concrete superstructure Baltimore 94.0 $18.514 $55.51 • Attractive precast concrete façade, but with basic Boston 114.7 $22,591 $67.74 reveal pattern Charlotte 85.8 $16,899 $50.67 • Glass backed elevators and unenclosed stairs clad with Chicago 120.0 $23,634 $70.87 glass curtain wall to the exterior • Basic wayfinding and signage Cleveland 96.9 $19,085 $57.23 • Shallow spread footing foundations Denver 89.8 $17,686 $53.03 • All above grade construction Dallas 86.2 $16,977 $50.91 • Open parking structure with natural ventilation, Detroit 100.9 $19,873 $59.59 without mechanical ventilation or fire sprinklers Houston 85.2 $16,780 $50.32 • Little or no grade level commercial space Indianapolis 91.6 $18,041 $54.10 • Basic parking access and revenue control system Kansas City, MO 102.5 $20,188 $60.53 • Energy efficient fluorescent lighting Los Angeles 113.4 $22,334 $66.97 Miami 83.8 $16,505 $49.49 Minneapolis 105.7 $20,818 $62.42 Nashville 87.4 $17,214 $51.62 New York 134.6 $26,510 $79.49 Philadelpphia 115.0 $22,650 $67.92 Phoenix 87.3 $17,194 $51.56 Pittsburgh 102.3 $20,148 $60.42 Portland, OR 99.5 $19,597 $58.76 Richmond 87.3 $17,194 $51.56 St. Louis 101.7 $20,030 $60.06 San Diego 109.1 $21,488 $64.43

San Francisco 128.6 $25,328 $75.95 City of Orland Park, IL Main Street Triangle Seattle 104.9 $20,660 $61.95 Five-level, precast concrete mixed-use parking structure Washington D.C. 94.0 $18,514 $55.51 with grade-level commercial and built over a street.

National 100 $19,700 $59.06 Average

800-FYI-PARK | carlwalker.com Parking Structure Cost Outlook for 2017

The construction cost of the parking structure will typically be PARKING INDUSTRY CONSTRUCTION higher than the median if it includes such enhanced features as: ECONOMIC FORECAST The construction industry is quite busy and “there is a growing • 9’ 0” wide parking spaces for better user comfort belief among industry execs that the market will continue to • Cast-in-place post-tensioned concrete superstructure expand.”1 Likewise, construction of mixed use and stand- for lower maintenance alone parking structures should see continued growth in the • Attractive façade with precast, brick, metal panels, and near term as construction spending in the institutional sector other materials (i.e. city governments, higher education, and healthcare) is • ParkSmart Certification following the Green Business predicted to grow almost 6% during 2017 and 2018 and growth Certification, Inc (GBCI) program (formerly Green in the commercial, office, and retail sectors are predicted to be Garage Certification by the Green Parking Council) even higher during 2017 with some slowing in 2018. • Energy efficient LED lighting with occupancy and Over the past couple of years, warnings have been coming from the construction industry that projected economic photocell computer controls growth would lead to escalation of construction costs • Custom wayfinding and signage system and longer construction schedules due to labor shortages • Storm water management including on-site retention/ in construction trades and professional positions and as detention construction companies increase margins. • Deep foundations, such as caissons or pilings • Below grade construction • Enclosed stair towers due to local code requirements • Enclosed parking structure without natural ventilation where mechanical ventilation and fire sprinklers are required • Grade level commercial space • Mixed use development where the parking is integrated with office, retail, residential, or other uses • State-of-the-art parking access and revenue control system -- License plate recognition -- Parking guidance system -- Count system with variable message LED signs -- Pay-on-foot stations University of North Carolina-Charlotte • Wi-Fi and cellular services Craige Parking Structure Expansion and Restoration

Montgomery College Parking Structure Rendering

800-FYI-PARK | carlwalker.com Parking Structure Cost Outlook for 2017

The Engineering News-Record (ENR) Building Cost Index (CICI) increased to 76 points on a scale of 100 compared increased 3.3% from March 2016 to March 2017 and Turner to 61 at this time last year. “The sharp increase in the CICI Construction’s Turner Building Cost Index rose 5.05% over the past two quarters shows that, of the 263 executives the same period. The Consumer Price Index for All Urban of large construction and design firms responding to the Consumers (CPI-U) rose 2.4 percent for the 12 months ending survey, most believe market growth will continue at least 1 March 2017, indicating construction inflation reported by through the middle of 2018”. both the ENR and Turner indexes well exceeded consumer SUMMARY inflation over the same period. Industry experts recently The sustained growth in architectural firm backlogs reported reported the following on construction activity: by the Architectural Billings Index (ABI) is a positive indicator • The American Institute of Architects (AIA) chief economist for near term growth in the construction of parking Kermit Baker, PhD stated that “The prospects for the structures. In absence of any major political or economic construction sector for this year (2017) and next (2018) event, construction activity is forecasted to grow about 5% remain quite positive…and the expectations are that to 6% the next two years, including the institutional and construction spending will outperform the broader commercial sectors that traditionally build parking structures. 2 economy this year and next.” While there has been With the improved construction activity, project costs are fluctuation and regional differences in the AIA Architectural expected to escalate to a greater level than the projected Billings Index (ABI), AIA further reports that the “The increase in material and labor costs would indicate. Further, average ABI score in 2016 was 51.3”, suggesting “moderate shortages of skilled construction workers could restrain 3 growth in 2017”. market growth and raise construction inflation greater • The AIA also compiles a Consensus Construction Forecast than consumer inflation over the next two years as well as based on predictions of seven leading U.S. non-residential lengthen project schedules. construction forecasters in the U.S. The Consensus The parking professionals at Carl Walker will be happy to Construction Forecast indicates the non-residential assist with budgeting of your next parking structure. If you building construction industry is expecting continued have any questions or would like specific cost information growth the next two years. After an estimated 8% growth for your area, contact Gary Cudney at gcudney@carlwalker. in nonresidential construction during 2016, the consensus com or 800-FYI-PARK (800-394-7275). panel projects about 6% growth for 2017 and 5% for 2018, with increases in activity projected for the office sector of REFERENCES 10.6% (2017) and 4.6% (2018), healthcare sector of 4.9% 1. “Executives See Gains From Trump Administration Agenda,” by (2017 & 2018), and education sector of 6.3% (2017) and Gary J. Tulacz, Engineering News Record, March 20/27, 2017. 6.7% (2018).2 2. “Even with uncertainties looming, healthy gains projected for 2017 building activity,” by Kermit Baker, PhD, The American • Turner Construction’s Turner Building Cost Index which tracks Institute of Architects AIArchitect, January 25, 2017. construction cost escalation rose 4.7% during 2016. Their 3. The American Institute of Architects (2016, December). “ABI 2016 Fourth Quarter Forecast states that “The shortage of December 2016: Architecture firms report strong finish to the skilled labor continues to be a key factor towards cost impacts year.” Retrieved April 2016 from AIA website: https://www.aia.org/ across the construction industry. As we move into 2017, this pages/26736-abi-december-2016-architecture-firms-report-. focus on skilled labor is expected to intensify.”4 Additionally, 4. Turner Construction Company. “Turner Building Cost the Turner 2017 First Quarter Forecast indicates a 1.29% Index – 2016 Fourth Quarter Forecast.” Retrieved April increase in costs for the quarter and that “the availability 2016 from Turner Construction Company website: http:// of skilled labor continues to influence the decision making www.turnerconstruction.com/news/item/7619/Turners- of subcontractors, who are making a selective approach to Fourth-Quarter-Building-Cost-Index-Reflects-Increasing- pursuits…and a continued high level of construction activity Construction-Activity. has potential to extend lead times (for materials and project 5. Rivetti, Attilio. “Turner’s First Quarter Building Cost Index delivery) in the future.”5 Reflects Strong Market Conditions.” Retrieved April 2016 • The Engineering News-Record (ENR) recently reported their from Turner Construction Company website: http://www. first quarter 2017 Construction Industry Confidence Index turnerconstruction.com/cost-index.

800-FYI-PARK | carlwalker.com

MEMORANDUM

Planning Division

DATE: August 3, 2018

TO: Planning Board

FROM: Jana L. Ecker, Planning Director

SUBJECT: 2018 Planning Board Action List

At the July 25, 2018 meeting of the Planning Board during a review of proposed design changes to the Daxton Hotel at 298 S. Old Woodward, several board members raised questions regarding the prohibition on glass railings in the Downtown Overlay. In addition, board members questioned why metal panels were not included in the list of permitted high quality materials which must be used on at least 90% of the building facades. A request was made to consider adding these items to the Planning Board’s 2018 Action List.

The current version of the 2018 Planning Board Action List is attached for your review and comment.

Planning Board Action List – 2018 – 2019

SPECIFIC DIRECTION/ STUDY PUBLIC TOPIC STATUS NOTES PROBLEM DEFINITION SESSION HEARING

1 Bistro Parameters  Review the bistro 7/12/17 In Progress  As directed by the City regulations on the location 8/9/17 Commission on 7/10/17 or number of outdoor 9/13/17 dining seats permitted 1/10/18  Clarify and/or provide additional regulations to regulate the operation of bistros  Consider different standards for different districts

2 Renovation of  Amend the review 8/19/17 In Progress  As directed by the City Commercial procedures for new 0/13/17 Commission on 7/10/17 Properties construction and/or the renovation of existing

buildings  Clarify the distinction between a renovation and new construction  Clarify the distinction between a site plan review and a design review  Consider Planning Board review for use changes 3 Definition of 8/10/16 In Progress  As directed by the City Retail – Long 3/29/17 Commission on 7/11/2016 Term Study 5/10/17 6/14/17 1/10/18 3/14/18

4 Commercial  Clarify in the Zoning 1/10/18 In Progress  As directed by the City Projections onto Ordinance which, if any, Commission on 7/10/17 Public Property / projections are permitted Architectural into the ROW Allowances  Draft regulations to address the height, projection or permitted materials for architectural features projecting into the ROW

5 Shared Parking  Evaluate the 8/10/16  As directed by the City success/difficulties 2/8/17 Commission on 7/10/17 encountered in other 3/29/17 communities 5/10/17  Require a formal shared 7/12/17 parking agreement

6 Church /  Add definitions for Church  As directed by the City Religious and/or Religious Institutions Manager Institutions  Clarify in which zone district(s) each use is permitted

Updated March 19, 2018 7 Amend cost of  Update cost of parking  As directed by the City parking space space to today’s cost Manager for payment-in-  Build in automatic cost lieu of parking increase / year into to allow ordinance language additional building height in the Triangle District

8 Consider  Evaluate the current system looking at of listing only permitted principal uses in each zone district uses allowed and  Determine whether to add flexibility continue this system, or ("and other switch to broad use similar uses") categories that do not list all specifically permitted uses (ie. retail is permitted, instead of listing drugstore, shoe store grocery store 9 Potential  Consider adding garage residential zoning placement standards and/or changes; MF & MX garage and garage door size garage doors or design standards for mixed use and multi-family

residential developments

Updated March 19, 2018 10 Sustainable  Incentive option in Triangle 2/09/2005 2/25/09 Solar Urbanism District 7/11/2007 (PB - ordinance (Green  Guest speakers in LEED 8/08/2007 Solar) completed. building  Certification, Pervious Concrete, 9/12/2007 1/13/10 Wind 1/9/2008 standards, LED Lighting, Wind Power, (PB-Wind) ordinance 9/10/08 pervious Deconstruction completed. 1/14/09 2/10/10 surfaces,  Sustainability website & awards 1/28/09 (PB–Wind) geothermal,  Native Plant brochure 2/10/09 6/14/2010 native (LRP) (CC-Wind) plants, low 5/13/09 impact 8/12/09 development 11/11/09 etc.) 1/23/10 (LRP) 5/12/10

6/9/10

11 Additional  Woodward Avenue Gateway Plan 7/12/17 On Hold Items to be (Lincoln to 14 Mile Road) Considered  Parking during Master  Complete Streets Plan Process  Regional Planning

12 Review  Clarify review process for projects Process for on public property Public  Consider requiring same site plan Projects review process as that for private projects

Updated March 19, 2018

Completed Items 2017 - 2018

Window  Consider allowing clear glass only 3/29/17 6/14/18 PB Completed Tinting on first floor storefront windows 5/10/17

Standards  Consider adding tint standards for upper story windows

Transitional  Revise previous draft ordinance 3/29/17 5/10/17 PB Completed  Completion of Transitional Zoning (TZ2) language to create TZ2 zone Zoning Study & district for transitional properties in Implementation the City

Definition of  Temporary relief to clarify retail & 5/10/17 7/12/17 PB Completed  As directed by the City

Retail - personal services definitions 6/14/17 Commission on 5/8/17 7/12/17 Short Term  City Manager’s memo to PB

Study  Evaluate whether the current (Personal application of personal services is Services consistent with the intent of the Definition) 2016 Plan Economic  Consider revising the map in 8/19/17 10/24/17 Completed  As directed by the City Developm Exhibit A of the Zoning Ordinance 9/13/17 Commission on 7/10/17 ent to amend the number and/or License location of properties that may Boundary qualify for an Economic Review Development liquor license into other areas of the City Rail  Consider expanding the Rail 8/19/17 Completed  As directed by the District District to include properties on 9/13/17 City Commission on Boundary the west side of S. Eton across 7/10/17 Review from Big Rock and/or to include the North Eton Plaza

Updated March 19, 2018

7/24/2018 City of Birmingham MI Mail - Fwd: Detroit-area malls think outside big box to stay alive

Jana Ecker

Fwd: Detroit-area malls think outside big box to stay alive 1 message

Joe Valentine Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:49 AM To: "Andrew M. Harris" , Carroll DeWeese , Mark Nickita , Patty Bordman , Pierre Boutros , Racky Hoff , Stuart Sherman , Tim Currier Cc: Jana Ecker , Ingrid Tighe , Tiffany Gunter

fyi ------Forwarded message ------From: Mark Nickita Date: Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 5:56 AM Subject: Detroit-area malls think outside big box to stay alive To: Joe Valentine

FYI

Interesting article on the state of malls in metro detroit and across the country. It also mentions my project in Sterling Heights - we are creating a new design vision for the Lakeside mall property and a new zoning ordinance for the area.

It’s going to be interesting to see how this evolves. One common misunderstanding by much of the public is the dramatic difference between malls and Downtowns in regard to retail. Very different conditions, apples and oranges really

A couple of decades ago, malls held all of the cards while Downtowns struggle, the new paradigm is virtually the opposite.

It’s A Good time for Birmingham

Mark

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/2018/07/23/traditional-metro-detroit-malls-struggle/777039002/

Detroit-area malls think outside big box

Breana Noble | The Detroit News 11:00 p.m. EDT July 23, 2018

Sterling Heights — Destiny Philips didn't come to Lakeside Mall to shop. Instead, the 23-year-old teacher from Detroit was taking her young son and daughter to Jeepers, an indoor arcade with rides.

Keyné Conley did have shopping on her mind at the traditional enclosed mall in Sterling Heights. But it was only because the 23-year-old Detroiter needed some last-minute things for vacation, and Amazon's two-day delivery wouldn't arrive in time.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=4033b3ab11&jsver=ge0kD63AxJI.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180718.15_p4&view=pt&search=inbox&th=164cc56bb8d71af4&siml=1 7/24/2018 City of Birmingham MI Mail - Fwd: Detroit-area malls think outside big box to stay alive Their experiences illustrate the changing attitudes of Americans toward brick-and-mortar retailers. With growing competition from online shopping, regional malls face possible death — witness the fate of Southfield's Northland Center and Pontiac's Summit Place Mall. Or they must learn to adapt, whether it is attracting a diversity of tenants or ditching the traditional mall concept altogether.

It is a choice Lakeside Mall may need to make as revenue drops, and tenants and shoppers desert the 42-year-old complex. One of its anchor stores, Sears, is liquidating its stock before closing in September.

Shoppers often drive past Lakeside on their way to the Mall at Partridge Creek. Less than two miles east on Hall Road, it can be tough to find a parking place at the 11-year-old open-air mall in Clinton Township. Customers flock to Partridge Creek for its Main Street feel, popular restaurants and concerts in the outdoor square.

Lakeside Mall employs 2,000 and contributes $2 million in local property taxes. That makes it a top priority for Sterling Heights, City Manager Mark Vanderpool said — so much so that the city commissioned plans to determine the best use of the mall's 150 acres.

One of those concepts would transform the site into a walkable downtown, which Sterling Heights does not have. That plan calls for knocking down the 1.5-million-square-foot mall's walls, except possibly the stores housing Lord & Taylor, Macy's and Sears, and building developments for higher education, housing, offices and retail.

Vanderpool and Sterling Heights Mayor Michael Taylor recently visited Lakewood, Colorado, to look at a similar project. The 100-acre Belmar center, formerly an enclosed mall, was demolished to make room for a 22-block city center with retail, restaurants, entertainment, housing, offices and a hotel. Cost: $750 million.

The alternate plan commissioned by Sterling Heights keeps Lakeside Mall intact with new developments on its 7,000-space parking lot.

Vanderpool said the city is working with the mall's owner, C-III Asset Management LLC, and its management company, Jons Lang LaSalle Inc., in planning Lakeside's future. Jerry Weller, Lakeside's general manager, said JLL is aware of the city's plans and is working with an architecture firm to create its own design. JLL would not share details.

"Lakeside is a strength for the community, but it could become a weakness for our community if we don’t do anything," Vanderpool said. "No one wants to see a mall close. Failure is not an option."

Hard times coming

Credit Suisse predicts up to 25 percent of malls in the United States will shutter in the next five years. That's about 275 locations.

Retail expert Kenneth Dalto, president of Dalto Consulting Inc., said rent prices in Metro Detroit malls have fallen by 20 percent to 25 percent in recent years. As malls lose their anchors and occupancy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=4033b3ab11&jsver=ge0kD63AxJI.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180718.15_p4&view=pt&search=inbox&th=164cc56bb8d71af4&siml=1 7/24/2018 City of Birmingham MI Mail - Fwd: Detroit-area malls think outside big box to stay alive levels drop, many tenants renegotiate their leases, driving the prices downward.

Lakeside's occupancy is hovering around 80 percent. According to a report from commercial real estate data firm Trepp LLC, as leases expire and tenants miss sales thresholds or fall into bankruptcy, new leases are made at lower-than-existing rates and for shorter terms.

"When a landlord is faced with a maturing five-year lease, they are going to get scared," Dalto said. "They don’t want to lose another 10,000 square feet. It looks horrible to go to a mall where every fourth store is vacant."

Research firm Internet Retailer said e-commerce in the United States represented 13 percent of total retail sales in 2017, up from 11.6 percent in 2016. As a result, retailers have turned to emphasizing in-store experiences to attract shoppers.

"Bridal shops for the last three years have increased in income, number of locations and square footage," said retail broker Ben Rosenzweig, vice president of Colliers International Group Inc., a global real estate and investment management company.

"They're doing really well because they've moved away from the old retail shop. It's back to where you come in with your crew, hang out, try on the dresses and drink. Retailers that provide the experiences — they are winning the game."

That is why, Rosenzweig said, malls faced with emptying Carson's, Macy's and Sears are looking outside the usual anchors. Across the country, daycare facilities, fitness centers, hotels, movie theaters, swim schools and trampoline parks have moved into vacant big-box spaces.

In March 2017, Ford Motor Co. moved 2,000 of its employees into a 240,000-square-foot Lord & Taylor vacancy in Dearborn's Fairlane Town Center. Before that, Fairlane's net operating revenue had fallen 27 percent between 2015 and 2016, according to a Trepp report. By October 2017, after Ford moved in, the Starwood Retail Partners mall was beating its previous full-year's operating profit by 15 percent. The men's clothing department at Macy's, Fairlane General Manager Joshua Bruff said, is the second-best performing in the country.

Bruff is a 14-year industry veteran. Despite the gritty outlook for malls, Bruff said it is a "very exciting time" for the business. He and his real estate team are in conversations to fill an outgoing Sears at Fairlane with entertainment, housing or public space.

"It's not only retail. That doesn’t work anymore," Bruff said. "We’re looking at everything that would make sense, not only for shopping, but for Dearborn."

Cautionary example

In Southfield, the former site of Northland Center shows the future that Lakeside and Fairlane are looking to avoid. After Macy's and Target left America's oldest mall, Northland closed in April 2015.

Southfield wants to create a mixed-use development in its place, combining assisted-living, housing, offices, research and retail. It is in talks with several possible stakeholders, including San Diego- based Pacific Medical Buildings, which builds and manages real estate for health systems and hospitals, and Bloomfield Hills' Edward Rose & Sons, a luxury residential developer.

"We hope this can be a model for others across the country," said Michael Manion, Southfield's community relations director. "This is a hot retail market. We're paving the way for redevelopment, doing a lot of the job for them, making it an attractive site."

Middle-class 'magnet'

Walkable, community-focused centers like the Mall at Partridge Creek are bucking the downward retail trend. The Starwood-owned 640,000-square-foot outdoor mall combines MJR Cinema, restaurants and traditional shopping with a community park.

Partridge Creek has outdoor concerts five nights a week in the outdoor square near Carson's. Henry Ford Macomb Hospitals holds yoga and Zumba classes on Wednesday mornings. A play park and play fountain make it family-friendly. Dogs are welcome.

"It's a downtown area in Macomb County," Partridge Creek General Manager Wendy Batiste-Johnson said. "I believe our customers come to the mall for the full package that can’t be obtained by a click of the button at your home."

Retail expert Dalto agreed: "They've made it a destination. People all the way from Grosse Pointe want to go there. It's a magnet for the east-side middle-class."

Johnson said in the 11 years of the mall's existence, its sales have increased every year. The mall's net operating income was nearly $13 million in 2016, according to a Trepp report, a 9 percent increase from 2015.

Even with anchor-store Carson's closing this summer, Johnson said she is not worried about filling empty spaces. Last month, Michigan's only Cooper’s Hawk Winery & Restaurant opened in the mall's last available vacancy.

"The intent remains for continued growth at the Mall at Partridge Creek," Johnson said. "We're excited to share those experiences that visitors cannot get anywhere else in Michigan."

[email protected]

(313) 222-2429

Twitter: @BreanaCNoble

11:00 p.m. EDT July 23, 2018 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=4033b3ab11&jsver=ge0kD63AxJI.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180718.15_p4&view=pt&search=inbox&th=164cc56bb8d71af4&siml=1 7/24/2018 City of Birmingham MI Mail - Fwd: Detroit-area malls think outside big box to stay alive

Mark Nickita, FAIA, CNU, APA City Commissioner City of Birmingham, MI

Like me on Facebook Mark Nickita

Twitter @MarkNickita

-- Joseph A. Valentine City Manager City of Birmingham 151 Martin Street Birmingham, MI 48009 (248) 530-1809 Office Direct (248) 530-1109 Fax [email protected] Twitter: @JoeValentine151

To get the latest information regarding the City of Birmingham, please sign up for our communication tools by clicking here www.bit.ly/bhamnews.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=4033b3ab11&jsver=ge0kD63AxJI.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180718.15_p4&view=pt&search=inbox&th=164cc56bb8d71af4&siml=1