the city of ferndale · leah deasy absent: laura moore austin colson robert porter 2) approval of...

1

The City of FerndaleAgenda

Board of Zoning Appeals MeetingTUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2020 @ 7:00 PM

1.ROLL CALL

2.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

3.ELECTIONS

4.APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

4.a. Approval of the minutes of December 17, 2019

5.REGULAR AGENDA

5.a. 705 E. Bennett - 2 Dimensional Variances

6.ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

7.BOARD ITEMS

8.ADJOURNMENT

1

https://d2kbkoa27fdvtw.cloudfront.net/ferndalemi/bcf638b1a6c1c8ccb6a5ef11d64e5c750.pdf

https://d2kbkoa27fdvtw.cloudfront.net/ferndalemi/fe04bb3e0e0b7feb8042ecf4f6e5da820.pdf

January 21, 2020 City Clerk

CITY OF FERNDALEREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION

FROM: Barb Miller

SUBJECT: Approval of the minutes of December 17, 2019

INTRODUCTIONApproval of the minutes of December 17, 2019

SUMMARY & BACKGROUNDApproval of the minutes of December 17, 2019

BUDGETARY CONTEXTNA

CIP#NA

ATTACHMENTSMinutes of 12-17-2019.docx

STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXTOrganizational and Financial Excellence

RECOMMENDED ACTIONApproval of the minutes of December 17, 2019

2

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/513419/Minutes_of_12-17-2019.pdf

of 6

MINUTESBoard of Zoning Appeals

December 17, 2019 7:00 PMCity Hall, 300 E 9 Mile, Ferndale MI, 48220

1) ROLL CALL

PRESENT: Judy PalmerCarly MitchellGreg PawlicaMike SteidemannIan WilliamsonLeah Deasy

ABSENT: Laura MooreAustin ColsonRobert Porter

2) APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Moved by Judy Palmer, seconded by Greg Pawlica to approve the agenda as presented.

For: Judy Palmer, Carly Mitchell, Greg Pawlica, Mike Steidemann, Ian Williamson, Leah DeasyAgainst: NoneAbstain: None

6 - 0 - 0

MOTION CARRIED

3) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

3.a Minutes of November 19, 2019

Cover Page2019 11 19 BZA Minutes.pdf

Moved by Judy Palmer, seconded by Leah Deasy to approve the minutes as presented.


3

Board of Zoning AppealsDecember 17, 2019

6 - 0 - 0

MOTION CARRIED

4) REGULAR AGENDA

4.a 831 E. Lewiston - Section 24-159 (Upper Level Residential Use Regulations -Ordinance Interpretation

Cover Page20191217-831 E Lewiston BZA Staff Report.pdf20191217-831 E Lewiston BZA Application.pdf831 E Lewiston Floor Plan.pdf831 E Lewiston Certificate of Occupancy.doc

Mr. Harris (applicant) - own building at 831 E Lewiston and run 2 businesses - gift & loyalty cards with local businesses and across the country, referrals from imagine pos; also, private/personal training generally before/after business hours and weekends. That's the reason for the live/work space. Involved with Rec department; was on steering committee for MXD use zoning. Upper level is above street level, that's how they interpreted that, not necessarily 2nd level. Previous building inspector knew it was going to be live/work space. Suggested he could be a model for how buildings could be used. Would not have moved forward if he knew this was going to be a problem. It was an unused building for 6 years until he renovated. In the spirit of what we were trying to accomplish; what I've done makes more sense than to renovate the building and add a 2nd floor. Fashion designer and baker wants to use live/work space in the area.

Williamson - looking at the plans, it looks like a single-story building with a step up Harris - the entrance is above street level Williamson - raised platform floor, with kitchen bathroom Harris - there are 2 raised platform suites Williamson - drove by but hard to see the raised platform from exterior Palmer - 2 areas 3 steps up from the based easy - in this building, what is at street level? Harris - office you enter is above street level Deasy - a floor must be at street level Harris - if that's the way you interpret, the entrance, and the lobbyDeasy - maybe they're talking about grading, and you're above that; what's the best way to tell business from living? Harris - tenant is at street level, there is a locking door between business and residential Deasy - living area is at right side Harris - main living space - kitchen, laundry, bedrooms, are 3 steps up Deasy - what percentage of building is living space? Harris - 1800 sf, more than 50%Palmer - you have 3 first floor offices, open office space, then you go up 3 steps to living space. Trying to have visual of why it's 2nd floor; a tri level is 5-6 steps. Yours is half of that. Street level and first floor is your entry; I've never heard of 2nd level at 3 steps Williamson - we're struggling with the extremely aggressive interpretation; every property in the industrial area Harris - if you renovate an old building this should be part of the ordinance as well

4


Williamson - we're not Council and can't make changes in the law; if we interpret the ordinance in a certain way, the city is bound by that; Harris - aren't we talking about the M1 district Williamson - we're bound by the decisions we make Palmer - in perception of the building itself, it looks like a single-story buildingHarris - it has 18' ceilings Palmer - never heard of a second story being less than the height of the first floor Harris - it's a very unique structure Palmer - M1 says 2nd story Harris - working with previous administration, they gave me the green light and said you have to have a stairway if you're living there. I did everything they asked me, and it's been 4-5 years. Palmer - if you have something to prove the information you were given the green light, something in writing for Justin to review; it may be a situation that can be overcome at the city level and we have to enforce our codes; you need to go to administration with anything you had from the previous administration; that is to your advantage. Deasy - the COO states it's not for living in Harris - nobody was hiding anything from the city; they encouraged med easy - then why would they give you the COO Harris - I was waiting for the Mxd use to go through Council; it says upper level; there's a lot of gray areaWilliamson - this may be better for a use variance request rather than interpretation - we're going to bind the entire city if we interpret the upper level as 2nd story; that's how we and city council perceived it. If we can find a way to accommodate without going up the chain to council or court Harris - what is the reason you must have living space above instead of side by side? Williamson - on the Planning Commission side, we have a vibrant light industrial and there's pressure to put in more residential and there's concern about converting them to residential; we're going to lose our industrial if this happens Harris - I thought that's what we wanted - a unique, cool area with live/work spaces. Lyons - it took time for these ordinances - the intent of the ordinances for maker spaces, industrial, encourage upper level as in stories above the first level. Council said a Special Land Use (SLU) would be the appropriate process - there's a public notice process - it was to look at the area parcel by parcel.

Pawlica - we talk about Mxd use and it's zoned M1 - what is it zoned?Lyons - it's M1 - attachment shows the area, it's confusing Williamson - it was a recognition that the area has evolved and lighter uses have moved in Palmer - the new Mxd use code is allowing residential with business; is there a percentage? Lyons - no, it's upper level; building code is a minimum 8'Steidemann - building seems cool, the upper level doesn't seem married to it; if he added a second level, what could be allowed? Lyons - it could be one room with meeting other criteria; residential has to be separate; one room could be added going to SLU process Palmer - so you could put in an 8' structure within the 18'Lyons - they can have a common lobby area Deasy - based on what's before us, I could not say your residential qualifies; I see your side of it to be able to buy a building to live/work there. We do want more housing, but we also want to maintain the commercial/industrial area. Wanting to keep commercial use as close to the street as possible to keep it vibrant and that's probably why it's upper level as opposed to 2nd story; I agree with the sentiment. Question to Justin - ordinance change to allow more accessory use. Overall introducing more accessory

5


residential, are we looking at adding any other districts? Would it be allowed in M1 with a percentage and not at the lot line? Lyons - accessory dwelling units would be looked at in March/April - or some sort of better description of residential; I know the intent. Hilton live/work turned into living rooms. I can put it on the list. Deasy - I get it; not saying to living in every cool industrial building but there could be some way of defining the residential use; look at other like cities. Not saying 50% living Williamson - looking more closely - what happens if we have a larger building with a mezzanine level? I would be inclined to allow mezzanine residential. At this point, I know we just did a revision, further resolutions would be in order. This should be brought back to PC and maybe having a meeting with BZA/PC and talk about situations we need to address. We need restrictions - we have upper level residential and it's not tied to owner occupied industrial. it's not addressed except through SLU. We can do something with language to give more guidance. Still not inclined to allow steps up for residential. If we come up with interpretation that the language is ambiguous. Can staff come up with language that is not ambiguous? We can craft a motion that states the existing language is ambiguous. Palmer - ultimately, we don't want to approve/deny what's before us tonight. Williamson - Harris is right that it's not what the ordinance says; I'm not seeing a definition that's comfortable. We're interpreting it to mean 2nd story; it's not just planners interpreting the ordinance and it has to be more acceptable to the public. Harris - would it help to visit the building Williamson - no, we're looking to revisit the language of the ordinance and decide to change the way residential uses in industrial area can be accommodated. Palmer - you have doors, but it may need some change Williamson - you interpret the language differently that supports the meaning to be; you've pointed out ways to make the language better. Lyons - definition of a story in ordinance is a portion of building. Mezzanine is not included in definition of story - let's put a drawing with that Williamson - we should have said 2nd story residential instead of upper level; the language isn't as clear as it could have been Lyons - we originally wanted to pursue a use variance; BZA isn't able to overturn SLU Williamson - it would have been a struggle; you're going to be in limbo for the time being

Stacie Vorves - 562 W Oakridge - have 2 businesses 2354 Grayson - landscaping and dog care - there are other issues here- noise, residential creeping in. I make noise at my building. I'm not next door to residential, it's commercial. I don't have a problem with him living there. Residents have to live with the industrial noise, traffic. It's not me living in residential. I should not have had to put $10,000 in my building to accommodate residential living. If he's going to live there, I need assurances that I'm allowed to make 85 decibels because that's the code. The ordinance saying dogs are not allowed to make noise; that's ridiculous. I'd rather have someone living there. Part of steering committee; the stories are one issue, residential people have to tolerate industrial use, that's the first use. Williamson - reason for stricter residential use in industrial is that will not change; this is and should be primarily an industrial area. We have to provide for owner/industrial use, that's the intent industrial vs residential. Vorves - I had to spend money to make my business quieter and should not have had to do so. Williamson - I appreciate the comment Pawlica - appreciate you expressing your concerns - you had to abide by new sound levels. First/foremost whatever the use, if you stay within the 84 decibels you shouldn't have a problem. I'm curious where you got 84 decibels Vorves -it's in the code book; you also have a rule that dogs can't bark

6


Pawlica - that's in the sound ordinance, are we referencing that? We should reference sound ordinance within these districts we're creating. Pet boarding ordinance was put in 2012 and it was a new use - we can take a look at that too and invite business owners to participate. Williamson - any final questions specific to his property or the ordinance Palmer - if we make a motion, are we motioning to table this because at this point, we don't know what to do here Lyons - it was going to be my recommendation and we should include the ambiguity finding Deasy - does tabling it tonight, does it preclude Code enforcement? Lyons - will follow up and send decision to board

Steidemann - Mr. Harris - do you own the property at Yorba Linda Harris - wife still lives there, she owns it Lyons - this isn't zoning but OC defines space at office, warehouse, storage, no mention of residentialWilliamson - I wouldn't expect any of these buildings to be up to date and introducing them. We need to fix this Pawlica- single story residential Steidemann - do we have any ability to add a rider to be livable for a month allow time to figure out next steps? Williamson - it's outside of our powers - we'd like to make code enforcement aware the description is vague and as a result our recommendation is against immediate enforcement be stayed until the language can be shaken out by Council and Planning Commission. Lyons - I'll relay to staff and attorney and we'll keep everyone informed.

Moved by Judy Palmer, seconded by Leah Deasy to table indefinitely because the statutory language is ambiguous; until there are a better interpretation and definition of upper level vs second level, and the establishment of specific language to interpret characteristics of the M1 district.


6 - 0 - 0

MOTION CARRIED

5) ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

Dunning Honda did take to Oakland County to combine parcels and will come before BZA with new option. Steidemann - 2 properties, can't have sign on south facing, had to ask for total variance. Williamson - will have to look at size of lots as a whole; he shouldn't have any signs on side of building as it stands now. Palmer - current non-conforming is ok Williamson - yes; city allowed him to replace existing non-conforming with same size Steidemann - all of the additional should have been in the variance for consideration Williamson - if lots are combined, he can have a larger sign. This is what caused the tabling.

7


Actual M1 and M2 were amended and approved. It continues form-based code. Council also passed amendments to off-street parking, et al earlier meeting. BZA and community will be invited to those meetings. New developments are being designed in a more walking fashion. Conversations will continue

6) BOARD ITEMS

Pawlica - with new council coming on, we all decide amongst ourselves which board we want to be on. I may/may not be on this board in January. Have a wonderful holiday. Williamson - you've been an excellent board member Palmer - the last 3 years have been more interesting than the previous years. It's a day/night difference. Appreciate everyone on the board the past 3 years. We learn something new every time.

7) ADJOURNMENT at 8:35 PM

_____________________________________Barbara Miller, Deputy City Clerk

8

January 21, 2020 Community & Economic Development

CITY OF FERNDALEREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION

FROM: Justin Lyons

SUBJECT: 705 E. Bennett - 2 Dimensional Variances

INTRODUCTIONThe applicant is requesting two (2) dimensional variances for a site that was recently approved by City Councilto conditionally rezone the site from C-2 (General Commercial) to R-3 (Single/Multiple-Family Residential). Theapplicant is proposing to add 10 units to the existing multiple-family residential building. The applicantvoluntarily offered to pursue the dimensional variances as part of the conditional rezoning agreement.

SUMMARY & BACKGROUNDSee attached staff report for summary and background.

BUDGETARY CONTEXTN/A

CIP#N/A

ATTACHMENTS20200121-705 E Bennett BZA Staff Report.docx

20200121-705-755 E Bennett BZA Application.pdf

20191106-705-755 E Bennett-Site Plan.pdf

STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXT

RECOMMENDED ACTIONPlease see attached staff report for summary and background.

9

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/510549/20200121-705_E_Bennett_BZA_Staff_Report.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/510547/20200121-705-755_E_Bennett_BZA_Application.pdf

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/510548/20191106-705-755_E_Bennett-Site_Plan.pdf

705 E. Bennett – Dimensional Variances January 15, 2019 - Page 1 of 3

Community and Economic Development – Staff Report

REQUEST DIMENSIONAL VARIANCES – Section. 24-151 and Section 24-43.APPLICANT LeBlanc Ventures, Inc.

P.O. Box 701875, Plymouth, MI 48170OWNER Same as aboveLOCATION Corner of Fair Street and E. BennettPARCEL NUMBER 25-35-354-040ZONING R-3 (Single/Multiple-Family Residential)STAFF Justin Lyons, Planning ManagerATTACHMENTS Board of Zoning Appeals Application – December 18, 2019

Site Plan – November 6, 2019

SummaryThe applicant is requesting two (2) dimensional variances for a site that was recently approved by City Council to conditionally rezone the site from C-2 (General Commercial) to R-3 (Single/Multiple-Family Residential). The applicant is proposing to add 10 units to the existing multiple-family residential building. The applicant voluntarily offered to pursue the dimensional variances as part of the conditional rezoning agreement.

Request #1: Chapter 24, Article VIII., Sec. 24-151. Multiple-family dwellings. 24-151 (a) requires “Multiple-family dwelling façades shall not exceed 150 feet in overall length in a given plane, inclusive of any architectural features that are attached to the building or connect the parts of the building together.” The current overall building façade length is 178 feet and proposed façade length is 182 feet. The applicant is requesting a dimensional variance from the 150 feet requirement to permit a façade length of 182 feet, for a total variance of four (4) feet. The building is existing, non-conforming at its current façade length (178 feet), but the new four (4) feet projection on the exterior of the building necessitated the variance request.

Request #2: Chapter 24, Article III., Sec. 24-43. Schedule of regulations. permits a maximum density of 35 units per acre in the R-3 (Single/Multiple-Family Residential) zoning district. The current site permits 16 units based on the site’s size. The applicant is requesting a variance from the 16 units requirement to permit a maximum of 20 units, for a total variance of four (4) units.

Please review the attached application and site plan, submitted by the applicant, identifying the reasons for the variances requested.

10


Aerial Photo of Site & Surroundings

Image of parcel from Oakland County Property Gateway (2019)

General Requirements for Appeal (Section 24-246)In deciding appeals, the Board must find:

A. The action proposed will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties; increase the danger of fire; unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area; harm the environment; or in any other respect impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or welfare of the inhabitants of the City;

B. The action proposed will be compatible with adjacent uses, and of such height, location, size and character that it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of thesurrounding neighborhood;

C. The action proposed will not unreasonably increase congestion in public streets, make vehicular and pedestrian traffic more hazardous than is normal for the district involved, taking into account sight distances, traffic flow, provisions for pedestrian traffic, and minimization of potential traffic conflicts;

D. The action proposed will not create a nuisance;E. The plight of the applicant results from special or unique circumstances peculiar to the property

and not from general neighborhood conditions; andF. The alleged hardship has not been created by the applicant or any person having a current

interest in the property.

Nonuse or Dimensional Variance Considerations (Section 24-427 (c))The applicant must present substantial evidence to show that if the Zoning Ordinance is applied strictly,practical difficulties to the applicant will result. To grant a dimensional variance, the Board must find:

11


1. Compliance with the strict letter of the restrictions governing area, setbacks, frontage, height, bulk or density will unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome.

2. The intent and purpose of this Ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.3. A lesser variance than that requested would not give substantial relief to the owner of the

property or be more consistent with justice to other property owners. 4. The standards set forth in Section 24-426 are satisfied.

Example Zoning Variance Motions

APPROVAL MOTION #1MOTION by , seconded by , that the Board of Zoning Appeals APPROVE the DIMENSIONAL variance application to allow a variance of four (4) feet from the required 150 feet, at 705 E. Bennett Street, Sidwell number 24-25-35-354-040, after a Public Hearing was held as set and published for this date and place, the motion is accompanied by the following findings:

Findings1. that section Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article VIII., Sec. 24-151. Multiple-family residential

requires facades shall not exceed 150 feet in overall length in a given plane, inclusive of any architectural features that are attached to the building or connect the parts of the building together, and the applicant is requesting a four (4) feet variance;

2. that a practical difficulty does exist in that conformity with the strict letter of the multiple-family residential ordinance is unnecessarily burdensome in that the applicant does not have other available alternatives that would allow for all applicable zoning requirements to be met;

3. that the intent of the City’s ordinance will be observed, and the applicant will be denied rights enjoyed by others in the same zoning district as other property owners if required to meet the multiple-family residential façade length maximum ordinance;

4. That the proposal does not impair the public health and safety of inhabitants of the City;5. that the plight of the applicant does result from conditions or circumstances unique to the

property; and6. that the alleged hardship was not created by the applicant, instead the hardship was created by the

unique circumstances of the property.

Therefore, the requirements of Section 24-426 regarding granting a variance have been met.

DENIAL MOTION #1MOTION by , seconded by , that the Board of Zoning Appeals DENY the DIMENSIONAL variance application to allow a variance of four (4) feet from the required 150feet, at 705 E. Bennett Street, Sidwell number 24-25-35-354-040, after a Public Hearing was held as set and published for this date and place, the motion is accompanied by the following findings:

Findings1. that section Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article VIII., Sec. 24-151. Multiple-family residential

requires facades shall not exceed 150 feet in overall length in a given plane, inclusive of any architectural features that are attached to the building or connect the parts of the building together, and the applicant is requesting four (4) feet variance;

2. that a practical difficulty does not exist in that conformity with the strict letter of the multiple-family residential ordinance is unnecessarily burdensome in that the applicant does not have other available alternatives that would allow for all applicable zoning requirements to be met;

3. that the intent of the City’s ordinance will not be observed, and the applicant will be not denied rights enjoyed by others in the same zoning district as other property owners if required to meet the multiple-family residential façade length maximum ordinance;

12


4. That the proposal does not impair the public health and safety of inhabitants of the City;5. that the plight of the applicant does not result from conditions or circumstances unique to the

property; and6. that the alleged hardship was created by the applicant and the hardship was not created by the


Therefore, the requirements of Section 24-426 regarding granting a variance have not been met.

APPROVAL MOTION #2MOTION by , seconded by , that the Board of Zoning Appeals APPROVE the DIMENSIONAL variance application to allow a variance of four (4) units from the required maximum density of 35 unit per Acre, at 705 E. Bennett Street, Sidwell number 24-25-35-354-040, after a Public Hearing was held as set and published for this date and place, the motion is accompanied by the following findings:

Findings1. that section Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article III., Sec. 24-43. Residential Districts, Schedule of

Regulations requires the maximum density per acre shall not exceed 35 units per acre, and the applicant is requesting four (4) units more than ordinance requires;

2. that a practical difficulty does exist in that conformity with the strict letter of the maximum density per acre ordinance is unnecessarily burdensome in that the applicant does not have other available alternatives that would allow for all applicable zoning requirements to be met;

3. that the intent of the City’s ordinance will be observed, and the applicant will be denied rights enjoyed by others in the same zoning district as other property owners if required to meet the maximum density per acre ordinance;

4. That the proposal does not impair the public health and safety of inhabitants of the City;5. that the plight of the applicant does result from conditions or circumstances unique to the

property; and6. that the alleged hardship was not created by the applicant, instead the hardship was created by the


Therefore, the requirements of Section 24-426 regarding granting a variance have been met.

DENIAL MOTION #2MOTION by , seconded by , that the Board of Zoning Appeals DENY the DIMENSIONAL variance application to allow a variance of four (4) units from the required maximum density of 35 unit per Acre, at 705 E. Bennett Street, Sidwell number 24-25-35-354-040, after a Public Hearing was held as set and published for this date and place, the motion is accompanied by the following findings:

Findings1. that section Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article III., Sec. 24-43. Residential Districts, Schedule of

Regulations requires the maximum density per acre shall not exceed 35 units per acre, and the applicant is requesting four (4) units more than ordinance requires (or 42 units per Acre);

2. that a practical difficulty does not exist in that conformity with the strict letter of the maximum density per acre ordinance is unnecessarily burdensome in that the applicant does not have other available alternatives that would allow for all applicable zoning requirements to be met;

3. that the intent of the City’s ordinance will be not observed, and the applicant will be not denied rights enjoyed by others in the same zoning district as other property owners if required to meet the maximum density per acre ordinance;

4. That the proposal does/does not impair the public health and safety of inhabitants of the City;5. that the plight of the applicant does not result from conditions or circumstances unique to the

13


property; and6. that the alleged hardship was created by the applicant and the hardship was not created by the


Therefore, the requirements of Section 24-426 regarding granting a variance have not been met.

14

architect:

five / eighths architecturewww.5-8ths.com 2393 hilton roadferndale / michigan / 48220

contact / brad de vriest: 248 / 891 / [email protected]

client / building owner:

leblanc venture, incp.o. box 701875 plymouth / mi / 48170-0972

contact / jerry leblanct: 248 / 971 / 0298e: [email protected]

3

2

147

8

10

11

12 69

5

use the sheet index grid as a reference to locate drawingson individual sheets within the set.

2015 michigan building code, mbc 2015

2015 michigan mechanical code, mmc 2015

2015 michigan plumbing code, mpc 2015

2014 national electrical code w/ state amendments, nec 2014

ASHRAE 90.1 (2013) Standard

accessibility: michigan barrier free design law, p.a. 1966 as amended and the icc / ansi a117.1-2009 standard as referenced from chapter 11 of the 2015 michigan building code.

Note: these construction documents were prepared for compliance with the local construction codes in effect at the time of permit submittal. all engineers, contractors, and suppliers involved with this project shall comply with the same codes, issued and approved code modifactions, and / or local construction boards of appeals rulings and whenever required shall provide shop drawings and submittals clearly describing compliance to the registered design professional in responsible charge for review and approval.

The following submittals shall be prepared and included as part of the construction documents as they become available: (per section 107.3.4.2)

-signage drawings and details-photometric plan-fire supression-MEP engineering-site engineering, though storm water will be addressed as required-utilities

Do not scale drawings. Consult owner if dimensional question arises.

Contractor shall provide all items, articles, materials, and operations scheduled including all labor, materials, and incidentals required for completion.

All construction shall conform to all applicable local, state, and federal codes/laws. Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining all applicable building and other permits required for the completion of the work.

All dimensional lumber, plywood, particle board, fitting, and blocking shall be pressure treated/UL certified non-combustible.

Contractor shall verify all dimensions and conditions shown on the drawings at the job site.

Notify the architect or owner prior to commending work of any discrepancies, conflicts, or omissions in the construction documents and field conditions. An addendum will be issued as necessary and will become a part of the contract documents. For those discrepancies not brought to the attention of the owner, it will be assumed that the contractor has bid the more expensive method of construction.

Coordinate all work before and during construction with all other affected trades.

Where interfaces develop, notify owner for resolution of conflict.

five / eighths

707 e. lewiston avenue #106 ferndale / michigan / 48220

t: 313 / 936 / 0835e: [email protected] www.5-8ths.com

shee

t num

ber

of

benn

ett a

partm

ents

755

east

ben

nett

aven

ue /

fern

dale

/ m

i / 4

8220

lebl

anc

vent

ures

, inc

.

G/0.01

title

she

etsi

te p

lan

revi

ew1

bennett apartments755 east bennett avenue / ferndale / mi / 48220

site plan review 08 / 27 / 2019

08 / 27 / 2019

10 / 24 / 2019

G/ 0.01 title sheetG/ 0.02 general notesG/ 0.03 code reviewC/ 1.10 site plan / existingC/ 1.20 site plan / proposedC/ 1.40 site plan / landscapeA/ 1.01 floor plan / proposed second floorA/ 1.40 plan / roof deckA/ 2.01 elevations / exteriorA/ 7.01 detail / lighting spec sheet

4project directory 1sheet list

8sheet index

10

project title 3

7applicable codes10deferred submittals

11project notes

1

1

1

1

10 / 24 / 20191

22

north arrow

centerline

5A5.08

area reference

detail numbersheet number

detail

exteriorelevation

interior elevation

A5.08 5 detail number

sheet number

A5.08 5 detail number

sheet number

level head

0' - 1 5/8"dimensionstring

project northtrue north

room tag 5 08

room numberroom level

room name

level name

5' - 8"

----

Sim

section tag

direction of section

5A5.08

detail number

sheet number

asphalt paving

concrete

gravel

grass

concrete masonry wall

centerline

lot line

hidden, above, below

gypsum wall board

penny tile

square tile (various)

cold water supply (sized per code)

hot water supply (sized per code)

under ground sanitary sewer pipe (sized per code)

above ground sanitary sewer pipe (sized per code)

/ and> angle@ at+ height above

ABV aboveADJ adjustableAP access panelAPPROX approximate

BB baseboardBEL belowBO bottom ofBR broiler

CB caseworkCMU concrete masonry unit

D depthDF deep fryerDIM dimensionDN downDW dishwasher

(e) existingE eastEF exhaust fanELEC electricEP electrical panelEQ equalEXT exterior

FC faucetFD floor drainFL floorFF finish floor

GA gaugeGB grab barGD garbage diosposalGG gas griddleGR gradeGW grease waste dumpsterGYP gypsum wallboard

H heightHVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

INCL includeINT interior

LT lightLV lavatory

MAX maximumMIN minimumMR mirrorMT metal

N north

O.C. on center

PD paper dispenserPOS point of servicePR printerPROV providePT paint

RCP reflected ceiling planRF refrigeratorREF referenceRK rack

S southSF square footageSK sinkSIM similarSP speakerSPEC specifiedST stone

TC trash cartTL tileTO top ofTP toilet paperTR trash canTV televisionTYP typical

VH ventilation hoodVIF verify in field

W westW widthW/ withWC water closetWD woodWH water heaterW/O without

101

1i

1t

door tag

wall tag

window tag

room tag5 08

room numberroom level

room name

property information:

PIN: 24-25-35-354-040zoning: C-2 - general commercial lot area: .48 acreslegal description: T1N, R11E, SEC 35 FRANK GRIX SUB LOTS 72 TO 75 INCLnumber of buildings: 1number of stories: 1 existing; 2 w/ additionbuilding area: 5,676 SF existing; 6,680 SF proposed addition = 12,356 totalheight: 8'-0" FT existing; 12'-0" addition = 20'-0" totalparking spots: 13 existing + 11 new = 24 totalsprinklered: currently no. a sprinkler system will be added as part of

the renovation

1

On this lot currently is a one-story, ten-unit apartment building. The goal of the project is to add a second story to the building, adding another ten units similar in shape and size to the existing units.

The second floor building addition is planned to be 6,905 square feet without increasing the building footprint.

The only alteration to the existing first floor will bring the existing drive aisle into compliance. This alteration would decrease the width of the existing building by 3 feet.

Building improvements including updating the brick to look more current by painting over it with a light/neutral color, modernizing the look of the site through modern finishes, and demolishing and repaving the parking lot in the rear of the site.

along with building improvements new trees will be added to the lot. at the time of this submittal, eastern redbuds are proposed. the landscaping is subject to change. the proposed location of these trees are on the east and west ends of the property.

10

8symbols11legend / project

4abbreviationslegend / tags 7

shee

t num

ber

of

five / eighths



benn

ett a

partm

ents

755

east

ben

nett

aven

ue /

fern

dale

/ m

i / 4

8220

lebl

anc

vent

ures

, inc

.

G/0.02

10 / 24 / 2019

gene

ral n

otes

site

pla

n re

view

2

bennett apartments

755 east bennett avenue / ferndale / mi / 4822008 / 27 / 2019

1project information

project name:

project address:

3vicinity map

2project description

1

23

use and occupancy classification per chapter 3 of MBC:

310.4 Residential Group R-2. Group R-2 occupancies containing sleeping units or more than two dwelling units where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature, including:

Apartment houses

occupant load calculations per chapter 10 of MBC:

maximum floor area allowances per occupant per table 1004.1.2:

1. residential: 200 gross2. mehcanical equipment room: 300 gross

calculations:

areas per space function per occupancy plan: first floor second floor TOTAL

1. residential: 5,279 sf 6,680 sf 11,959 sf2. mechanical equipment room 397 sf 225 sf 622 sf

occupants per function:

1. (11,959/200) = 59.8 occupants2. (622 / 300) = 2.07 occupants

TOTAL = 61 OCCUPANTS

Per section 23-223 - Off Street Parking Requirements of the Ferndale Zoning Ordinance

Residential uses:

Multiple-Family Dwellings:

1.5 per dwelling unit, plus 1 per each 10 dwelling units for guest parking.

Proposed Addition to 755 East Bennett Avenue:

Total number of units including proposed addition:

20 units

Required Parking Spaces:

20 x 1.5 = 3020 / 10 = 2

30 + 2 = 32

therefore, 32 parking spaces are required. 24 are proposed on site (non-compliant)

at the time of this submission, a verbal agreement for 6 additional spaces has been arranged between the applicant and the business directly across East Bennett Avenue. additional parking agreements are being pursued at this time.

there are at least 16 on-street municipal parking spaces within 500 feet of the building. with 24 on-site spots, 6 spaces with a verbal agreement, and 16 on-street spaces this project is compliant with the zoning code (see section 24-223 (g) (2)).

24 + 16 + 6 = 46 spaces

Per Section 24-223(g)(g) reduction of parking requirements. the planning

commission may reduce the parking requirements based upon a finding that there will be a lower demand for parking due to one or more of the following factors:

2. convenient municipal off-street parking or on-street spaces are located within 500 feet that have the capacity to handle additional parking

Per section 24-223 (e)(e) bicycle facilites. all developments shall be designed to

accomodate bicycle travel, including bike racks. all parking structures and parking lots shall provide sufficient bike racks based on a minimum of one bike for every ten automobiles or one bike for every 3,000 square feet of building floor area, whichever is greater. The use of enclosed bicycle storage and/or shared facilities is encouraged.

12,356 sf building floor area total

12,356 sf / 3,000 = 4.12

Per Section 24-103 - Schedule of Regulations of the Ferndale Zoning Oridnance:

For R-3 Single/multiple family residential Districts:

Maximum Height:

Building Height (feet): 45

Minimum Lot Size:

Area 4,000Lot Width: 33

Maximum Lot Coverage:

Buildings: 70%Impervious Surfaces: --

Setbacks:

Front (feet): max 10 (a)Side (least) (feet): 5Side (total) (feet): 10Rear (feet): 20

a. where 50 percent or more of the frontage on the same block has been previously built upon, the front setback shall be plus or minus three feet from a line established by using the average depth of the front yards of the five adjacent lots in either direction within the same zoning district eliminating the greatest and least distances measured from the front edge of the house, porch, or deck.

Proposed Addition to 755 East Bennett Avenut:

Existing use will remain the same:

Height:

Addition Height (feet): 20'-7" (complies)

Existing Lot Size:

Area (square feet) 21,000 (complies)Lot Width (feet): 200 (complies)

Lot Coverage:

Building w/ Addition: 25% (complies)Impervious Surfaces: 40% (complies)

Setbacks:

Front (south)*: 28'-6" (existing non-conforming)Side (east): 13'-3" (complies)Side (west): 12' (complies)Rear (north): 20'-4" (complies)

*the average setback for the five adjacent properties, eliminating the greatest and least is 23'-4"

24-191 Vegetated greenbelts:

1. Vegetated greenbelts shall contain one deciduous tree per each 30 linear feet, or fraction thereof, of frontage onto a public right of way.

310 feet of frontage / 30 feet = 10.33

trees required: 11

trees: 6 existing + 5 proposed = 11 total (complies)

24-198 Waste Receptacles:

1. The regulations of this section shall apply to all uses that have their refuse removal needs serviced by collective refuse containers in multiple-family residential and non-residential districts. (complies)

3. Waste receptacles shall be located in the rear yard or non-required side yard unless otherwise approved by the planning commission. (complies)

5. Waste receptacles shall be easily accessed by refuce vehicles without potential to damage automobiles parked in designated parking spaces or interefere with the normal movement of vehicles on or off the site. (complies)

6. All commercial and multiple-family outdoor trash disposal and recycling containers shall be screened on all sides with a masonry screening wall and solid gate. The screen and gate shall be at least as high as the receptacles, but no less than six feet in height.(complies)

7. Receptacles shall be consolidated to minimize the number of collection sites, insofar as possible, containers shall be located away from the public view and shall be situated to avoid causing a nuisance to the occupants of nearby buildings. (complies)

8. Concrete pads and approaches at least six inches thick in depth and protective bollards shall be provided for trash and recycling containers. (complies)

24-151 Multiple-Family Dwellings.

(a) Multiple-family dwelling facades shall not exceed 150 feet in overall length in a given plane, inclusive of any architectural features that are attached to the building or connect the parts of the building together

existing: 177' - 9" (existing non-conforming)proposed: 181' - 10" (dimensional variance requested)

24-194 screening

10. Equiment screening. With the exception of single and two-family residential, any mechanical equipment or utilities and similar equipment, including water and gas meters, elevator housings, stairways, tanks, heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment, exhaust pipes or stacks, satellite dishes and other telecommunications receiving devices and other similar equipment, shall comply with the following standards:

a. all roof-mounted equipment shall be screened by parapet walls or a pitched roof integrated into the architectural design of the building of sufficient height to screen rooftop equipment and provide sound attenuation. The location, height and screening methods shall be shown on the site plan. (complies)

shee

t num

ber

of

five / eighths



benn

ett a

partm

ents

755

east

ben

nett

aven

ue /

fern

dale

/ m

i / 4

8220

lebl

anc

vent

ures

, inc

.

G/0.03

code

revi

ewsi

te p

lan

revi

ew3

08 / 27 / 2019

10 / 24 / 2019

10

1code review / use and occupancy

2parking requirements

7schedule of regulations

1

1

1

5landscape requirements

6waste receptacles

8facade lengths

9hvac screening

1

1 1

1

24

side setback

9' - 0"

existing dumpster location

200' - 0" lot width

lot d

epth

110'

- 3"

fron t

set

back

28' -

6"

rear

set

back

20' -

4"

driv

e ai

sle

16' -

0"

side setback

18' - 4"

4' - 0"4' - 0"

5' - 0"

3' -

6"

755 east bennett avenueexisting building - 1 story

5,676 sf (total)C-2 general commercial

parcel # 24-25-35-354-040legal description:

T1N, R11E, SEC 35 FRANK GRIX SUB LOTS 72 TO 75 INCL

east bennett avenue east bennett avenue

east bennett avenue

fair

stre

etfa

ir st

reet

kitty's cheescakes and more681 east 8 mile road

existing buildingzoned C-2

kitchen concepts711 east 8 mile road

existing buildingzoned C-2

691 east bennett avenueexisting building

zoned C-2

existing buildingzoned R-2

770 east chesterfield aveexisting building

zoned R-2

setb

ack

from

stre

et

24' -

6"

setb

ack

from

stre

et

24' -

6"

setb

ack

from

stre

et

35' -

0"

12' - 2"


zoned R-2


zoned R-2


zoned R-2680 east chesterfield ave



zoned R-2

existing tree

existing chain link fence existing wood privacy fence

21" s

ewer

21" s

ewer

18" combined storm/sewer

8" water main

8" water main

8" w

ater

mai

n


fire hydrant

manhole cover

existing water and sewer connection lcoation iscurrently unknown. if new services are neededthey will be replaced accordingly. if water lineis lead, it will be replaced accordingly. locationof services to be verified.

existing building width

140' - 1"


28' - 2"

exis

ting

build

ing

dep t

h

28' -

2"

exis

ting

build

ing

dep t

h

58' -

9"

exis

ting

build

ing

dept

h

61' -

11"

shee

t num

ber

of

five / eighths



benn

ett a

partm

ents

755

east

ben

nett

aven

ue /

fern

dale

/ m

i / 4

8220

lebl

anc

vent

ures

, inc

.

C/1.10

site

pla

n / e

xist

ing

site

pla

n re

view

4

08 / 27 / 2019

10 / 24 / 2019

1/16" = 1'-0" 1site plan / existing

9

1

25

9' - 0"

5' -

0"

4' - 0" 9' - 6"

driv

e w

idth

16' -

0"

12' - 0" exis

ting

fron t

set

back

28' -

6"

20' -

4"

13' - 3"

proposed dumpster locationenclosed with 8"' painted

CMU block wall and painted steel gate

lot dimension

200' - 0"

lot d

epth

110'

- 9"

proposed first floor building width

137' - 1"

exis

ting

build

ing

dep t

h

61' -

11"


28' - 2"

exis

ting

build

ing

dep t

h

28' -

2"

existing building dimension

13' - 2"

exis

ting

build

ing

dep t

h

58' -

9"

neighboring building

27' - 0"

24' -

0"

neighboring building

35' - 0"

25' -

0"

12' -

0"

22' - 0"

58' -

0"

47' - 11"

37' - 11"

58' -

0"

east bennett avenue

fair

stre

et

east bennett avenue

east bennett avenue

fair

stre

et

fron t

set

back

25' -

0"

setb

ack

from

stre

et

24' -

6"

setb

ack

from

stre

et

24' -

6"

front setback

11' - 4"

7 units7x one bedroom

3 units3x one bedroom

concrete drive

asphalt parking lot

proposed second flooroverhang

3' - 6"

one-

way

driv

e ai

sle

15' -

5"

18' - 0"

1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

681 east 8 mile roadexisting building

zoned C-2


zoned C-2


zoned C-2



zoned R-2750 east chesterfield aveexisting building

zoned R-2


zoned R-2





zoned R-2

existing deciduous tree

proposed woodprivacy fence

29' - 9"

74.00

°






21" s

ewer

21" s

ewer


8" water main

8" water main

8" w

ater

mai

n


manhole cover

one-way drive

one-way drive

one-

way

driv

e

fire hydrant

existing water and sewer connection lcoation iscurrently unknown. according to city records, watersupply is 5/8" and will need to be replaced to meetcity code. if supply is made of lead it will be replacedaccordingly.

8' - 0"

9' - 0"

new bicycle parking 3-loop wave style, underneath stair with space for four bicycles

proposed new eastern redbud tree

6" parking curb

proposed 'do not enter' sign

18' -

0"

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

shee

t num

ber

of

five / eighths



benn

ett a

partm

ents

755

east

ben

nett

aven

ue /

fern

dale

/ m

i / 4

8220

lebl

anc

vent

ures

, inc

.

C/1.20

site

pla

n / p

ropo

sed

site

pla

n re

view

5

08 / 27 / 2019

10 / 24 / 2019

10

1/16" = 1'-0" 1site plan / proposed

1

26

proposed dumpster locationenclosed with 8"' painted

CMU block wall and painted steel gate

east bennett avenue

fair

stre

et

east bennett avenue

east bennett avenue

fair

stre

et


zoned C-2


zoned C-2


zoned C-2



zoned R-2750 east chesterfield aveexisting building

zoned R-2


zoned R-2





zoned R-2

existing deciduous treespecies to be verified





manhole cover

fire hydrant

new bicycle parking 3-loop wave style, underneath stair with space for five bicycles

proposed new eastern redbud tree

6" parking curb

proposed 'do not enter' sign

grass area (e) to remain

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

shee

t num

ber

of

five / eighths



benn

ett a

partm

ents

755

east

ben

nett

aven

ue /

fern

dale

/ m

i / 4

8220

lebl

anc

vent

ures

, inc

.

C/1.40

site

pla

n / l

ands

cape

site

pla

n re

view

6

08 / 27 / 2019

10 / 24 / 2019

10

1/16" = 1'-0" 1site plan / landscaping proposed

1

27

DN

WW

W

DD

D

3' -

11"

19' - 6"

11' -

10"

7' -

7"14

' - 4

"

11' - 9" 2' - 0" 5' - 0"

21' -

3"

34' - 3"

13' -

6"

2' -

0"5'

- 0"

7' - 7"14' - 4"6' - 6"

18' -

2"

12' - 5"

8' -

5"

11' - 11"

shee

t num

ber

of

five / eighths



benn

ett a

partm

ents

755

east

ben

nett

aven

ue /

fern

dale

/ m

i / 4

8220

lebl

anc

vent

ures

, inc

.

A/1.01

floor

pla

n / p

ropo

sed

seco

ndflo

orsi

te p

lan

revi

ew7

08 / 27 / 2019

10 / 24 / 2019

10

1/8" = 1'-0" 1plan / second floor

1

28

parapet

3' -

0"

181' - 10"

39' -

5"

rooftop hvac unittyp.

hvac screen clad in same material as 2nd floor siding

18' -

11

5/8"

13' - 2" 6' - 6"

6' - 6"

35' - 2"

65' -

4 1

/4"

3' - 0"

127' - 0"

shee

t num

ber

of

five / eighths



benn

ett a

partm

ents

755

east

ben

nett

aven

ue /

fern

dale

/ m

i / 4

8220

lebl

anc

vent

ures

, inc

.

A/1.40

plan

/ ro

of d

eck

site

pla

n re

view

8

08 / 27 / 2019

10 / 24 / 2019

10

1/8" = 1'-0" 1plan / roof

1

29

horizontal clapboard siding inlight/neutral color, typ.

brick painted in a light/neutral color, typ.

recessed LED light in2nd floor overhang, typ.see A/7.01 for specs

181' - 10"

20' -

7"


8' -

0"

rooftop hvac screen, clad in same material as 2nd floor siding

perforated metal screenstair enclosure

transparent roofhorizontal wood siding, typ.

8' -

0"9'

- 0"

para

pet

3' -

7"

recessed LED light inroof overhang, typ.see A/7.01 for specs

20' -

7"

1

8' -

0"12

' - 7

"

prop

osed

ove

rall

heig

ht

20' -

7"

proposed second floor depth

65' - 5"

dum

pste

r scr

een

heig

ht

8' -

0"

proposed dumpster enclosurepainted CMU block with painted steel gate

existing depth

58' - 9"

proposed second floor depth

65' - 5"

3' - 6"

shee

t num

ber

of

five / eighths



benn

ett a

partm

ents

755

east

ben

nett

aven

ue /

fern

dale

/ m

i / 4

8220

lebl

anc

vent

ures

, inc

.

A/2.01

elev

atio

ns /

exte

rior

site

pla

n re

view

9

08 / 27 / 2019

10 / 24 / 2019

10

1/8" = 1'-0" 2elevation / south

1/8" = 1'-0" 1elevation / north

1/8" = 1'-0" 9elevation / east1/8" = 1'-0" 3elevation / west

1

30

shee

t num

ber

of

five / eighths



benn

ett a

partm

ents

755

east

ben

nett

aven

ue /

fern

dale

/ m

i / 4

8220

lebl

anc

vent

ures

, inc

.

A/7.01

deta

il / l

ight

ing

spec

she

etsi

te p

lan

revi

ew10

08 / 27 / 2019

10 / 24 / 2019

10

1

31

the city of ferndale · leah deasy absent: laura moore austin colson robert porter 2) approval of...

Documents