1

The City of FerndaleAgenda

Planning Commission MeetingWEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2019 @ 4:30 PM

CITY HALL, 300 E 9 MILE, FERNDALE, MI 48220

1. ROLL CALL

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

3.A. Approval of Minutes of May 1st, 2019Approval of meeting minutes of May 1st, 2019 as presented.PC - 01 May 2019 - FINAL Minutes.pdf

4. CALL TO AUDIENCE

5. PUBLIC HEARING

5.A. 133 University Conditional RezoningConditional Rezoning RecommendationStaff recommends approval of the application and agreement for conditional rezoningfrom P-1 to R-2. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditionalrezoning to City Council, staff would schedule a public hearing at City Council. Theapplicant would pursue a lot width variance at the Board of Zoning Appeals and ifapproved, continue the administrative review of the site plan. 20190515-133 Univeristy Conditional Rezoning-Staff Report.pdf

Property Overview.pdf

Future Land Use Page 35.pdf

JBC Document.pdf

6. NEW BUSINESS

7. DISCUSSION ITEMS

7.A. M-1 (Limited Industrial) Ordinance Amendment Discussion20190515-M-1 Industrial Sub-Discussion Item Packet.pdf

8. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 1

2

9. ADJOURNMENT

2

May 15, 2019 Community & Economic Development

CITY OF FERNDALEREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION

FROM: Rich Tschirhart

SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes of May 1st, 2019

INTRODUCTIONApproval of meeting minutes of May 1st, 2019 as presented.

SUMMARY & BACKGROUND

BUDGETARY CONTEXTN/A

CIP#

ATTACHMENTSPC - 01 May 2019 - FINAL Minutes.pdf

STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXTOrganizational and Financial Excellence

RECOMMENDED ACTIONApproval of meeting minutes of May 1st, 2019 as presented.

3

MINUTES

Planning Commission MEETING

May 1, 2019 City Hall, 300 E 9 Mile, Ferndale, MI 48220 6:30 PM

Present: Commissioners Christa Azar, Deborah Brazen, Michael Cascio, Matthew Showalter, Ian Williamson, Chair Kate Baker.

Absent: Commissioners Corissa Green, Dan Martin, Patrick Rock.

Meeting begins at 6:47PM.

1 ROLL CALL

Commissioners Corissa Green, Dan Martin, Patrick Rock are absent; staff was notified. Motion to excuse their absence by Deborah Brazen, seconded by Michael Cascio. All in favor, none opposed.

2 APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Motion to approve agenda as presented by Cascio, seconded by Brazen. All in favor, none opposed.

3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES

a) Approval of Minutes of April 3, 2019

Motion to approve minutes of April 3rd, 2019 by Ian Williamson, seconded by Cascio. All in favor, none opposed.

4 CALL TO AUDIENCE

Evelyn Elster, 760 W Drayton: Takes issue with the tree action plan’s cost and sees no need to remove 80+ trees that have been deemed unhealthy, which DPW will turn around and sell. Does not think that the people getting paid to cut down the trees should be the ones deciding which ones should be cut. This feels more like a cash grab. Low risk trees need the same tree maintenance as healthy trees. No longhorn beetles have been found per a report. She is an avid gardener and has only seen one. No information given on ambrosia beetles. We do have carpenter ants, and they are not mentioned in the report. Talks about winter being the best for pruning, asks if Davey will only trim during this time. References the tail wagging the dog and asks Planning Commission and staff to please scrutinize these documents.

5 DISCUSSION ITEMS

4

Planning Commission

May 1, 2019

a) Mixed Use, Access Management, and Central Business Ordinances Discussion Staff has been working on proposed text amendments to align with recommendations in the Master Plan to encourage missing middle housing and implement a form/design-based code. Staff presented an initial draft of the proposed amendments to Residential districts and Mixed-Use districts at the November 14, 2018 Planning Commission meeting and had a follow-up discussion on February 6, 2019. Since that time, staff has focused on the Mixed Use districts and potential refinements to the CBD ordinance. The new approach intends to achieve the following:

• Incorporate similar design standards from CBD to MXD districts, while acknowledging different contextual considerations.

• Extract definitions and rules of measurement from CBD article to definitions article so they will apply to both CBD and MXD.

• Clarify a few regulations in CBD now that it’s been in practice:

o Build to flexibility

o Entrances

o Articulation

o Add intent to parking structures to encourage design for future uses

• Amend off-street parking to revise standards (electric vehicle and enclosed bicycle parking requirements) and include access management components (alley access requirements, number of driveways, front yard parking, driveway spacing, etc.).

• Strike a balance between code (form, scale, massing) and architecture (character) without being too prescriptive.

Justin Lyons introduces discussion item: We are getting closer on Mixed Use (MXD) updates, we’ve been talking about making adjustments to the Central Business District (CBD) ordinance. The timeframe is typical for such a large update. When large projects come through it’s worthwhile to take notes when real examples come through on where to adjust things, maybe tighten some things up – maybe there were some unintended consequences from those amendments, but they are good to talk about. Mentions concerns of being too prescriptive, limiting, but also too flexible. We are getting close to a middle ground. Some of that has to do with the architectural standards section, which is separate from the CBD ordinance; they were together at one point, but we separated them last year. I don’t think there’s a ton that would need to be changed in that section, but it would give Planning Commission the ability to do so if there were something to happen that was not predicted by the

5

Planning Commission

May 1, 2019

ordinance. Talks about including access management in the parking ordinance such increased bike parking and including electronic vehicle (EV) charging stations in new developments to continue with the city’s sustainability goals as well as the strategic plan and master plan. We think this is important if future developments want to be a part of Ferndale. We talked a little bit last time about difference between MXD-1 and -2…

Kate Baker mentions pausing the residential district changes pending the affordability recommendations that will be coming out.

Lyons: yes, we’ll have information this summer, we already have a consultant. We’ll come back with a more official timeline, but the summer is when the majority of that work will be done, giving us some more of the metrics behind the things we’re proposing. MXD-1 and -2: for MXD-2 we’re talking primarily Hilton, Livernois, portions of W Nine Mile. MXD-1 is more of the W Marshall area, which is primarily different housing types between single family attached and some multiple family dwellings. Gives examples – scale difference, lots, number of parcels – height of apt buildings in 35-40’ range. Uses: multiple family residential in W Marshall area. Hilton and Livernois are starting to see industrial building turned into commercial uses, production uses, tap rooms, art studios, etc. Talks of density not meant to be as intense as downtown. Talks about form standards in downtown language. Eventually will come back and look at residential, specifically where higher-density exists. Modifying waivers so they align with the design standards that you’ve mentioned that we want – we want more control over and more ability to consider ideas we didn’t plan on before. We’d keep storefront and stoop streetscape requirements; that would be separate. Mixed use is currently not proposed to have two different storefront types - it would just be one; they would each be in their own different sections. Some questions from when the draft was put together for non-residential projects in that architectural design section - do we need to be weighing in on materials and color more? Talk of a percentage chart in the past, may be shying away from it now? Articulation – it seems the biggest questions have been in downtown, this would apply to MXD as well. Talks about specifics of articulation. We are looking for feedback – do we want all of these things? Any thoughts on any introductory information?

Cascio: The slides in the packet – are they in our ordinance?

Lyons: They’re just examples of what others do, an idea of what we could bring back to the ordinance. To the architects on Planning Commission – have you seen any of this in other communities’ design?

Brazen: I’ve been working on a CBD project, and it really helps to have examples to show what we are looking for. Ferndale has character, but if you asked everyone here what that meant, we would all have different ideas. A better definition of character and having pictures of exactly what we mean may prove helpful.

6

Planning Commission

May 1, 2019

Lyons gives the example of an image in the slide from the packet looking very similar to W Nine Mile Rd., points out features and similarities.

Cascio: I agree, an exhibit to go along with the ordinance to be referenced would be great.

Brazen: As is, you can do things in the current ordinance that is not what we meant for it to do. We need more visual examples.

Michael Showalter: Would that be too binding?

Brazen: There are areas that are binding, but also broad enough that it leaves a lot up to interpretation. We need examples to get people into the direction we’re looking for.

Lyons: The architectural compatibility section – we’ve added quite a bit of text to allow for waivers, but also say these modifications should not result in the increasing dominating nature of parking and garage doors along the front of a building. Talk of materials, possible future materials that don’t exist yet, just rounding out what we have now.

Baker: Is this in the CDB district only?

Lyons: It’s broad. We were looking at feed back about exterior finish materials – this is an area where we want specific feedback. Discussion about architecture and concerns with siding materials.

Baker: This applies across the ordinance to all districts?

Lyons: Yes, though we will need delineation.

Ian Williamson: Are you asking if this means everywhere?

Baker: Yes.

Discussion of architecture guidelines and parking requirements.

Lyons: This is just the waiver section. We would call out R districts differently.

Williamson: I would love to see a restriction of galvalume, there is so much going in everywhere; the back of Ferndale house has too much. May be an issue because a lot of people want to use a lot of it. Chris George’s project on the service drive is made entirely of it. I don’t mind it as an accent, but an entire side of a building is too much.

7

Planning Commission

May 1, 2019

Cascio: Looking at the material chart, specifically talking about Residential – this is not prohibiting me from using vinyl on my home, correct?

Lyons: Correct, it will be specified.

Brazen: Adjacent buildings – is there a distance we’re looking at? Different in each neighborhood? You can find almost everything within a distance of a property, is there a distance we want to define?

Cascio: I could see that. Not sure of distance.

Brazen: The triangle house – the materials they took from were the storage facility across the street. If everything nearby is vinyl siding, are you prohibited from building with brick?

Baker mentions the homes on the north end of Wilson park as an example.

Brazen: Is there a clause for improved materials? Can we get by without using specific material names?

Lyons: Definitions – we’re moving rules of measurement and rules of distance together. Talk of changes made last year with stoops, etc. Saw things in the CBD ordinance that they want to adjust. Make entrances per storefront, not by arbitrarily picking a number. Door measurement needs clarification. There would be spacing for those two districts, but it’s adjusted.

Brazen gives example of commercial having two storefronts – would they be allowed two doors or one?

Discussion about storefronts, anchor tenants, doors.

Cascio: This brings up the philosophical discussion of what size of retail we want in the city. If one business takes up an entire building, do they only have one door?

Discussion about corner business – how will that work?

Williamson: Do we anticipate a retailer coming in and taking up three bays? The example of Pop’s Italian – their patio has a door; will that count as an entrance? What will satisfy the ordinance? I lean towards a door in each bay. For a retailer wanting to fit in here, it shouldn’t be too much of a sacrifice to fit into the better spacing.

Brazen: This does not prohibit overhead doors, correct?

Discussion of whether overhead doors should be counted as overhead or not.

8

Planning Commission

May 1, 2019

Lyons: Erin Quetell brought up doors needing to be unlocked during store hours; it is not currently required; do we want to add it in?

Baker gives examples of front doors being locked at business.

Lyons: As is, you could get away with just a fire door.

Baker talks about Cambourne and Woodward where the back of the businesses face the road.

Cascio: With the ordinance as intended, pedestrian walks down the street should be entertained every 60 ft.

Brazen: For retail and restaurants, yes, but what about office use? It could be security issue. As it is written, it does not allow Planning Commission to write a variance to allow that use.

Cascio: Are we trying to limit the size of offices on first floors?

Brazen: The ordinance is great for retail, not sure about other uses.

Williamson: I would like a variance procedure for that, but who would control it? The BZA? Planning Commission? Talks of BZA and variance requests. May not come up too often. If a different use came up, can we accommodate?

Baker gives “what-if” example of rebuilding city hall or the police station – how would we comply?

Williamson: Should it only apply to retail/commercial?

Lyons: We plan on writing ordinance on a use-by-use basis.

Baker mentions 310/314/318 W 9 Mile Rd, where Detroit City Skateboards is, alongside two other business; if changes are made to become one business, would they need a variance?

Cascio: If we make it only apply to retail/restaurant, we will deter them by adding another layer of something they have to comply with? Are we making it harder to open a business here? Not sure if variance is the right vehicle. Maybe a Planning Commission waiver, not BZA. There’s no hardship.

Williamson: Seems like it should be addressed in site plan review.

Baker: Do we need a spacing requirement between doors?

9

Planning Commission

May 1, 2019

Brazen talks about the Post Office being in CDB. Making it a variance or not, it still puts pressure on non-retail uses.

Baker: Do we keep it for now because it points to what we want?

Williamson: The language is saying you cannot have them closer than 60’.

Lyons: it’s just the slide…

Baker talks about Baker College having difficulty with designing an open student space/retail area.

Williamson: With a minimum, too, if there’s language in there that says there’s a minimum between the doors, I’m not sure why a couple of retailers can’t have two doors offset from each other. We don’t want too much uniformity, that adds to our uniqueness.

Lyons: Apologies, it should be “maximum.”

Brazen reads from packet, discussion follows of clarifying language on doors; maximum vs minimum.

Lyons: MXD districts – looking at what’s in use, it’s minimal. This clarifies setbacks that we want, step back specifics, articulation standards, etc., and removes context-specific items. Gives example of the building going up at W 9 Mile Rd. and Pinecrest; parking issues, brining frontage closer to street, parking in back, etc.

Baker: When I look at it, it makes sense. MXD – overall, is it more similar to CBD regulations? Are we allowed stoops in MXD?

Williamson: Looks like it.

Lyons: There’s a limitation on where setbacks can extend to. In the downtown, clarifying intent of storefront standards. Discussion of articulating and distance requirements. Will bring an example at the public hearing. We saw this on some projects, just not enough of a distinguishedness between storefronts.

Brazen asks for clarification on wall materials. Is uniformity made with color change? A slight difference in material? Gives examples, asks if that’s what we’re intending.

Williamson shares this concern.

Brazen: It works great if you’re trying to distinguish from next door as a retailer, but if it’s an office building, some other use, the Post Office, or City Hall, now we’re saying you’ve got a different wall material. Not disagreeing with rhythm of base but saying

10

Planning Commission

May 1, 2019

“different wall materials” may not be clear enough for people reading it. I’m trying to understand what we’re looking for.

Lyons: I’m looking for specificity on what we want on that. It doesn’t have to be answered on the spot.

Brazen quotes section G2 from the packet, talks about different measurement requirements and how they could potentially executed in different ways that may not be what we’re intending.

Christa Azar: What is the spacer?

Brazen: Is the 2’ bump out considered articulation change?

Azar: Would visuals help us sort this out?

Brazen: I think visuals would help. Even though we may not agree, we should test it all out before we get another project.

Baker and Brazen talk about images in slides, articulation, etc., the cost of moving the footprint. In terms of making all of the items fit – could it be too restrictive?

Lyons suggests rather than saying check all boxes, maybe two out of six.

Brazen would like more images showing what you could do; hit some of them, not all of them.

Williamson shares a story about a client in Lyon Township: They have a point-system for approval; cover enough items within the requirements and you’ll be approved. Might be a good idea, though don’t need to be that intricate.

Cascio: A score card for formed-based code – whatever this came from, it could be a great example of what you can do to score points. When were talking about different uses, I’m sure we’re not the first municipality that doesn’t fit in the code where they were built, I wonder what some other cities that have form-based codes are doing for buildings that inherently wouldn’t comply, like a city hall or Post Office. I think there’s something out there for us to look at to help us figure this out.

Brazen: Right now, the ordinance has no exceptions. Rebuilding city hall would require being built to what was in place.

Baker: Are we talking about these pictures specifically?

Lyons: Yes, I have examples of projects as well.

11

Planning Commission

May 1, 2019

Baker lists current and recent developments, asks Planning Commission for questions.

Lyons talks about frontage/parking requirements. The dog park was an option for Wolf River, discusses setbacks, entrances, private open area; they could not have dog park as the way ordinance is written now.

Discussion about setbacks and dog park.

Lyons: We know Ferndalehaus now does not meet the no parking within the first 30 feet requirement. Zero setbacks are met, but entrances would have to be adjusted.

Baker: Which they still could do. And when it’s appropriate, they can punch those three storefronts out.

Lyons brings up Baker College feedback; proposed columns met the ordinance but could have been better served.

Brazen points to slide of Baker College elevation, which technically meets the ordinance; windows set in two feet and parapet along roof qualify. It’s trying to meet all the things. There are a number of ways that building could have been reinterpreted, if we gave examples of what we were looking for…

Showalter: Color change?

Brazen: The color change, change in articulation, and windows all meet the ordinance. You could argue banding. The railing, the open space…

Showalter: It seems to kind of meet it slightly. The color is one shade off, which doesn’t seem to meet what we’re trying to do. Defining color change may help.

Discussion of DDA design guidelines and procedures. Transit Oriented District (TOD) review which will help developers meet the ordinance with their site plan.

Brazen: Without a clear statement of what we’re actually looking for, you can slip through and technically meet the ordinance as written and not hit the intent. I hate not seeing us getting the change we were trying to achieve.

Showalter speaks of material change and that we need to define what change means.

Discussion of materials, color change.

Showalter: When I think of different materials, I’m thinking of two separate trades working on the project.

Brazen asks what our intent is. Suggests we need to clarify what we’re looking for.

12

Planning Commission

May 1, 2019

Showalter is afraid of a point system from a cost perspective; developers will look for the cheapest way to get the points, could get many similar-looking developments.

Williamson: Scoring was only an example, maybe hitting four of seven could work if hit substantially.

Brazen: You can still have Ferndale character without having to hit everything.

Showalter: When you try to shove all seven in, it looks like smooshed parts. We’re trying to break down the scale of the building and we don’t need all seven.

Brazen: It’s not about what we individually like, it’s about what will fit the community.

Williamson discusses tension of Baker College not fitting in perfectly, developers wanting an institutionalized feel, but putting it downtown is where residents have issues with it not fitting.

Brazen: If we said it should be red brick, does that make it better? We need middle ground. Funky, but fits in and is appealing.

Baker to Lyons: Should we move on to the other topics? We haven’t given you much direction.

Lyons: I have some direction; we need more visuals. Asks everyone to please bring 5 pictures each of examples of buildings that we love, not like, not necessarily in Ferndale and why.

Brazen: There’s lots of discussion of “Don’t royal oak my Ferndale.” We should be conscious of the ordinance as is – it allows a lot of what is happening in Royal Oak right now. Discusses images and different styles.

Baker: As question came up about smaller footprints of buildings – how do you do that when the sizes of parcels are all different?

Cascio: Of the three projects we just looked at in the city that we are talking about in relation to this ordinance, two required waivers, and one required a city lot to build it. There does seem to be a link between doing something allowable by this ordinance and doing something that requires a waiver, or some kind of joining of properties.

Discussion of emailing images to Lyons, to be presented at the next meeting.

Lyons discusses the access ordinance. If people need two driveways, they need to demonstrate need.

13

Planning Commission

May 1, 2019

Dan Martin arrives at 8:03PM.

Erin Quetell begins by discussing electronic vehicle (EV) charging stations. She presents slides and mentions PlugInMichigan.org. As of right now we don’t have any EV requirements, but she thinks it would be good to bring to new developments. Talks about requirement statistics, ADA compliance. Looking for guidance specifically on how to integrate into single family housing. She has seen a lot of EV-ready homes, which requires a specific outlet for EVs that is equivalent to an outlet for an electric drier. Requiring these will be cheaper and easier at the point of construction.

Martin: Are other communities requiring these?

Quetell: Yes.

Martin: What if the technology changes?

Showalter: It’s relative affordable to change out, easy to do.

Quetell asks for guidance on requirements percentages.

Discussion of solar panels and solar-ready requirements.

Martin is generally supportive, though curious about what kind of cost we would be adding to construction. Discussion follows regarding cost for new construction versus retrofitting, NEC requirements, outdoor outlets, etc.

Williamson: It’s apparent and easily demonstrated through research that demand is increasing. Shares anecdote about gas pump technology not changing since he began driving.

Baker asks a question about the percentage, discusses stats in slides, asks threshold questions - should there be more spaces required where you’ll be staying longer?

Quetell: I agree, makes sense,

Showalter: These numbers will have to be revisited every few years.

Quetell: I didn’t mention that it could be a vehicle-based use, like a gas station. It didn’t end up in the slide, but it should be looked at.

Baker asks if places you pay to charge exist currently and what their availability is. Quetell confirms they exist on certain interstates and it could potentially be something to consider.

Lyons acknowledges the comments on restricting galvalume are heard loud and clear.

14

Planning Commission

May 1, 2019

Baker: Don’t shy away from increasing the expectation for internal bike parking in these locations.

Azar: I support that. You want you bike to secure and in good shape when you want to leave!

6 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

a) Tree Canopy Study

Quetell introduces urban tree canopy and gives brief overview of study. Shows snapshot of the TreeKeeper website, the what, how, and where of the information tracked. Gives quick demo of how the site works, jargon, descriptions, etc.

Martin: If a tree in my yard falls over, is the site updated?

Quetell says yes, but clarifies only public trees are tracked, not private. Explains how the site shows the benefit of each tree.

Martin: Are trees on school property tracked here?

Quetell says she’ll have to research that. She pulled some high-level information and can send info if anyone wants to dig deeper. The city has 41-42% maple. Neither the Asian Longhorn beetle nor Ambrosia beetle are found here, but they are the greatest threat based on the high concentration of these specific trees. Talks about history of tree pests. When we the did tree procurement, we tried to encourage non-maple plantings, but did not turn residents down if one was requested.

Baker asks about pruning maintenance.

Quetell goes over definitions of tree grades, noting that a “fair” rating is not bad, it’s actually good. Some fair trees may need pruning, but most are in pretty good health. Discusses maintenance by risk slide; because we haven’t had a cohesive forestry program for the last few years, pruning is the biggest issue. If not addressed, it will lead to more removals, though most removals have been completed at this time. Confirms that DPW does most pruning in the winter.

Baker asks for clarification on the statistics shown and risk evaluation, Quetell explains further.

Martin: Do we have a sense of, if they prune mostly during winter, what does that equate to in manpower from DPW, the whole tree management piece? How many FTEs does that equate to?

Quetell doesn’t have that particular information on hand and will research.

15

Planning Commission

May 1, 2019

Martin would like to see that at council. He believes the amount of work is well-placed but would also like to quantify what goes into it. Quetell gives Dan Antosik (Department of Public Works) DPW credit for keeping track of specifically tree-related work, but the information was not part of this evening’s presentation, thus not having the figures ready. Martin clarifies he wasn’t expecting it on the spot, he’s just interested in bringing the figures to light.

Quetell continues on, as part of that study plan provided by Davey, they gave an outline of what we could do for our specific tree canopy. During this specific budget cycle, while we were going through, figuring it out with DPW what work needed to be done, we adjusted the budget to accommodate the needs specifically. Big takeaways from the report and management plan: diversify tree stock, manage established tree population, use tree keeper, improve maintenance, performing inventory every 5 years, or 1/7 every year. Updated zoning ordinance for landscaping, updated vegetation ordinance. Payment in lieu, replacement of trees. Tree maintenance/protection via tree permits. No fees associated with, informational for the city to know what’s going on. Upped zero-loss in payment in lieu for trees, so if trees have to be removed for a development for whatever reason, they are replaced by the same amount of caliper inch.

Baker: Is the city complying with the program?

Quetell: Yes.

Martin: If we’re at good, what does great look like?

Quetell: 40%, We’re at approximately 32%.

Martin: When this comes to council, 8% doesn’t seem difficult to get to.

Quetell gives praise to DPW; they’ve been planting trees in the Wanda neighborhood via a CDBG grant, recommends everyone goes to check it out, the neighborhood looks great. There are more tree planting events coming up, goes over details. Talks about the Social Forestry Project. Gave stats on the opt-out portion of the Wanda neighborhood plantings - a lot of comments were elderly-related maintenance issues. When all was said and done, only about 30% opted out.

Martin recommends getting environmental team building on the agenda for Mayor’s Business Council.

Evelyn Elster discusses DPW doing the tree work, Davey tree giving their estimates to the tune of a million dollars, tree removal stats. Believes we shouldn’t get the estimate for tree removal from the person getting paid to cut the trees down. Shares concerns over tree planting locations and root mitigation and water/sewer lines. Has never seen any pruning done in the winter, but has seen it in the summer, which is

16

Planning Commission

May 1, 2019

the wrong time of year for it. Don’t know where your information from, you’re doing a great job, but it’s not my experience it’s happening that way. Hopefully these guys are trained a certain way, you have to cut a certain way, so they don’t bleed. Hopefully you aren’t harvesting. Could not locate the information easily, had to use FOIA to get it.

Quetell: The budget that Evelyn referenced is a proposal based on the numbers Davey gave, which are based on similar municipalities’ issues. We looked at it, looked at our current operations and are tying to figure out how to meet in the middle and have a more robust forestry program. DPW does most of the work, it’s rare that we would contract outside, maybe in the case of emergency. The wood taken down from any felling is at DPW’s southwest storage yard. Its being recycled and put back into the community. We’ve been having conversations about the wood. Selling it may be realistic.

Martin asks if we could work something out with furniture makers.

Quetell: Any profitability from the firewood program goes back to the tree program.

Baker: This is great, fifteen years ago we wouldn’t have the bandwidth to do any of this.

Quetell: Prior to 2017, for inventory they looked at GIS, aerial photos, and historical maps to gauge how much our canopy was. The second phase of the inventory was completed last year and reported out about August of 2018.

Discussion of how pruning budget came up through the management plan: quadrant by quadrant, tree by tree. DPW was responding to the tree inventory as it was happening, before the reporting was even done, so the trees that needed removing were handled as it was going on. Now after the management plan is completed, they’re on the normal maintenance cycle that is currently in place.

Martin gives credit to Quetell for getting the ball rolling. DPW has a strong entrepreneurial spirit, they’ve been taking on more, contracting out less, and making better use of resources.

Quetell: It’s also upping the level of service we provide and taking an aggressive approach to serving the community.

Baker refers to the self-dealing example mentioned about who is doing the research, training, work, and where the money is going. She suggests it may be worth doing a small presentation for transparency’s sake.

Quetell clarifies the different sides of Davey Tree Company and which we work with. We typically only work with the research side. They will offer assessment services but will not be doing any felling.

17

Planning Commission

May 1, 2019

Lyons announces Ferndale Bike Month and encourages everyone to check out FerndaleMoves.com for events. Upcoming topics for Planning Commission include: revisiting M-1 industrial zone, will be a discussion of a draft ordinance on May 15th. The public hearing for rezoning P1 to R2/R3 will be on the 15th as well.

Baker adds we will possibly be the revisiting P-1 as well.

7 ADJOURNMENT

Meeting was adjourned at 8:48PM.

Rich Tschirhart, CSR Building Department

18

May 15, 2019 Community & Economic Development

CITY OF FERNDALEREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION

FROM: Erin Quetell

SUBJECT: 133 University Conditional Rezoning

INTRODUCTIONA property owner is requesting a conditional rezoning for the vacant parcel 133 University Street from P-1(Vehicle Parking) to R-2 (Single/Two Family Residential) to permit a two-family dwelling use.

SUMMARY & BACKGROUNDThe applicant wishes to construct a two-family home on the vacant property with an accessory garage, either atownhome or duplex. Single-family detached dwellings, single-family attached dwellings (townhomes) andtwo-family dwellings (duplexes) are permitted uses in the R-2 district. Should the applicant receive arecommendation of approval by the Planning Commission and approval by City Council, the applicant wouldpursue a dimensional variance request at the Board of Zoning Appeals for lot width. The current lot width ofthe parcel is 33 feet and the lot width requirement for the R-2 district is 35 feet. A formal site plan has notbeen submit at this time, but the site plan would be administratively reviewed by city staff.

BUDGETARY CONTEXTN/A

CIP#N/A

ATTACHMENTS20190515-133 Univeristy Conditional Rezoning-Staff Report.pdf

Property Overview.pdf

Future Land Use Page 35.pdf

JBC Document.pdf

STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXTHealthy, Connected, and Invested Neighborhoods

RECOMMENDED ACTIONConditional Rezoning Recommendation

Staff recommends approval of the application and agreement for conditional rezoning from P-1 to R-2. Shouldthe Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional rezoning to City Council, staff wouldschedule a public hearing at City Council. The applicant would pursue a lot width variance at the Board of 19

May 15, 2019 Community & Economic Development

Zoning Appeals and if approved, continue the administrative review of the site plan.

20

133 University St. – Conditional Rezoning May 15th, 2019 - Page 1 of 4

Community and Economic Development Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 15th, 2019

REQUEST Conditional Rezoning

APPLICANT John Cissell 931 West Drayton Ferndale, MI 48220

OWNER John Cissell

LOCATION 133 University St.

FILE NO.

PARCEL NO. 24-25-34-253-022

ZONING P-1 Vehicle Parking

STAFF Erin Quetell, Environmental Sustainability Planner

Justin Lyons, Planning Manager Summary A property owner is requesting a conditional rezoning for the vacant parcel 133 University Street from P-1 (Vehicle Parking) to R-2 (Single/Two Family Residential) to permit a two-family dwelling use. The applicant wishes to construct a two-family home on the vacant property with an accessory garage, either a townhome or duplex. Single-family detached dwellings, single-family attached dwellings (townhomes) and two-family dwellings (duplexes) are permitted uses in the R-2 district. Should the applicant receive a recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission and approval by City Council, the applicant would pursue a dimensional variance request at the Board of Zoning Appeals for lot width. The current lot width of the parcel is 33 feet and the lot width requirement for the R-2 district is 35 feet. A formal site plan has not been submit at this time, but the site plan would be administratively reviewed by city staff.

Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning The subject site is P-1 (Vehicle Parking). The property is about 700 sq. yard vacant parcel adjacent to a public alley parallel to Woodward Ave. The parcels around the parcel are zoned C-2 (General Commercial) to the west and R-2 (Single/Two-Family Residential) to the east. The proposed project conforms to the Master Plan goal of integrating traditional residential to include compatible low-density housing. The Future Land Use map recommends Traditional Residential as the intended use and character for the parcel, which includes low-density housing types, such as townhouses and duplexes. The proposed development would align with surrounding zoning and act as a transition from commercial to residential. Staff believes the proposed number of units would not negatively impact the character or quality of life in the surrounding R-2 and C-2 zoned area. The conditional rezoning agreement ensures the development will be constructed as planned, otherwise the rezoning would be null and void, and revert to the P-1 zoning.

133 University St. (Conditional Rezoning)

21

133 University St. – Conditional Rezoning May 15th, 2019 - Page 2 of 4

Conditional Rezoning Review Considerations (Article XIV Section 24-325) The planning commission shall and the city council may consider the following criteria in making its findings, recommendations and decision: (a) An applicant requesting a rezoning may voluntarily offer a conditional rezoning. An election to submit

a conditional rezoning agreement shall be pursuant to the Zoning Act and this section. (1) The conditional rezoning shall be in writing, executed by the applicant and the city and

recorded with the Oakland County Register of Deeds. All costs associated with the review and approval of the conditional rezoning agreement shall be the responsibility of the applicant.

(2) The conditional rezoning may include limitations on: the uses permitted on the property in question; density or intensity of use; and location, size, height or other measure for buildings, structures, improvements, setbacks, landscaping, buffers, design, architecture and other features.

(3) The conditional rezoning shall not authorize uses or developments of greater intensity or density than those permitted in the proposed zoning district; nor may a conditional rezoning agreement permit variations from height, area, setback or similar dimensional requirements that are less restrictive than the proposed zoning district.

(4) The conditional rezoning may include conditions related to the use and development of the property that are necessary to:

a. Serve the property with improvements, including but not limited to, the extension, widening or realignment of streets; construction or extension of utilities or other infrastructure improvements serving the site; or the construction of recreational facilities.

b. Minimize the impact of the development on surrounding properties and the city overall.

c. Preserve natural features and open space beyond what is normally required. (b) In addition to any limitations on use or development of the site, preservation of site features or

improvements described above, the conditional rezoning agreement shall also include the following: (1) A legal description of the land to which the agreement pertains. (2) An acknowledgement that the conditional rezoning agreement was proposed voluntarily by

the applicant. A statement that the property shall not be developed or used in any manner that is not consistent with the conditional rezoning agreement. A statement that the approval of the rezoning and the conditional rezoning agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the property owner and the city and also their respective heirs, successors, assigns, receivers or transferees. Where the applicant for rezoning is acting on behalf of the landowner through some form of purchase agreement or other mechanism, then the landowner must also consent and sign the agreement.

(3) A statement that, if a rezoning with a conditional rezoning agreement becomes void in accordance with this section, that no further development shall take place and no permits shall be issued.

(4) A statement that no part of the conditional rezoning agreement shall permit any activity, use or condition that would otherwise violate any requirement or standard that is otherwise applicable in the new zoning district.

(5) Any other provisions as are agreed upon by the city and applicant. (c) Process

(1) The conditional rezoning agreement shall be reviewed concurrently with the petition for rezoning following the process in section 24-323, Procedure.

(2) The conditional rezoning agreement may be submitted prior to planning commission making its recommendation to the city council. The conditional rezoning agreement shall be reviewed by the city attorney, at the expense of the applicant, to determine that the conditional rezoning agreement conforms to the requirements of this section and the Zoning Act and

22

133 University St. – Conditional Rezoning May 15th, 2019 - Page 3 of 4

shall confirm that the conditional rezoning agreement is in a form acceptable for recording with the Oakland County Register of Deeds.

(3) Following the public hearing for a proposed zoning amendment, the planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city council based upon the criteria listed in section 24-323, Criteria for amendment of the official zoning map (rezoning). In addition, the planning commission shall consider whether the proposed conditional rezoning agreement:

a. Is consistent with the intent of this chapter. b. Bears a reasonable and rational connection or benefit to the property being

proposed for rezoning. c. Is necessary to ensure that the property develops in such a way that protects the

surrounding neighborhood and minimizes any potential impacts to adjacent properties.

d. Is necessary to allow the rezoning to be approved, in that the property could not or would not be rezoned without the proposed conditional rezoning agreement.

e. Is in the public interest and is consistent with the recommendations of the master plan.

(4) If a conditional rezoning agreement has been offered by the applicant and recommended for approval by the planning commission, the city council may approve the conditional rezoning agreement as a condition to the rezoning if it meets all requirements above. The conditional rezoning agreement shall be incorporated by attachment or otherwise as an inseparable part of the Ordinance adopted by the city council to accomplish the requested rezoning.

(5) If the conditional rezoning is approved, the zoning classification of the rezoned property shall consist of the district to which the property has been rezoned and a reference to the conditional rezoning agreement. The zoning map shall specify the new district plus an asterisk to indicate that the property is subject to a conditional rezoning agreement (i.e., "R-1*"). The city clerk shall maintain a listing of all properties subject to conditional rezoning agreements and shall provide copies of the agreements upon request.

(6) The approved conditional rezoning agreement shall be recorded with the Oakland County Register of Deeds.

(7) Any uses proposed as part of a conditional rezoning agreement that would otherwise require approval of a special land use or site plan approval shall be subject to the applicable review and approval requirements of Article XI, Site Plan Review and Article XII, Special Land Use.

(d) Expiration of approval (1) The rezoning and conditional rezoning agreement shall expire, unless extended by the city

council for good cause, two years after adoption if substantial construction on the approved development of the property pursuant to building and other required permits issued by the city has not commenced or is not proceeding diligently to completion.

(2) In the event that substantial construction on the approved development has not commenced within the aforementioned two years, the conditional rezoning agreement shall be void and of no effect.

(3) Should the conditional rezoning agreement become void, all development on the property shall cease and no further development shall be permitted. Until action satisfactory to the city is taken to bring the property into compliance with the conditional rezoning agreement, the city may withhold or, following notice to the applicant and being given an opportunity to be heard, revoke permits and certificates. This shall be in addition to or in lieu of any other lawful action to achieve compliance, including rezoning.

(4) Notwithstanding the above, if the property owner applies in writing for an extension of the conditional rezoning agreement at least 30 days prior to the expiration date, the city council may grant an extension of up to one (1) year if it determines that the owner has made diligent effort towards completing the conditions of the agreement.

(e) Reversion of zoning. If the conditional rezoning agreement becomes void as outlined above, then the land shall automatically revert back to its original zoning classification. The community development

23

133 University St. – Conditional Rezoning May 15th, 2019 - Page 4 of 4

department will advise the land owner and/or developer, by registered letter, of the reversion of zoning. The city shall take affirmative action to rezone the property.

(f) Continuation. Provided that all development and/or use of the property in question is in compliance with the conditional rezoning agreement, a use or development authorized there under may continue indefinitely, provided that all terms of the conditional rezoning agreement continue to be met.

(g) Amendment. The conditional rezoning agreement may be amended by the city council with the property owner's consent in the same manner as was prescribed for the original rezoning and conditional rezoning agreement.

(h) Violation of agreement. Failure to comply with the conditional rezoning agreement at any time after approval will constitute a breach of the agreement and also a violation of this Ordinance. Further use of the property may be subject to legal remedies available to the city.

(i) Subsequent rezoning of land. Nothing in the conditional rezoning agreement, nor any statement or other provision, shall prohibit the city from later rezoning all or any portion of the property that is the subject of the conditional rezoning agreement to another zoning classification. Any rezoning shall be conducted in compliance with this chapter and the Zoning Act.

(j) Failure to offer conditions. The city shall not require an owner to offer conditions as a requirement for rezoning. The lack of an offer of conditions shall not affect the owner's rights under this chapter.

(k) City not obligated. The city is not required or obligated to accept any or all conditions offered by a developer on a rezoning application. In no way is an offer of a conditional rezoning agreement the basis for requiring the city to approve a rezoning application.

Conditional Rezoning Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application and agreement for conditional rezoning from P-1 to R-2. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional rezoning to City Council, staff would schedule a public hearing at City Council. The applicant would pursue a lot width variance at the Board of Zoning Appeals and if approved, continue the administrative review of the site plan. Conditional Rezoning Approval Motion MOTION by , seconded by , in the matter of 133 University St., parcel numbers 24-25-34-253-022, the Planning Commission recommends City Council APPROVE the Conditional Rezoning, from P-1 (Vehicle Parking) to R-2 Single/Two-Family Residential), with the following findings and subject to the following conditions, after a Public Hearing was held as set and published for this date and place:

Findings 1) The Master Plan encourages appropriate development and diversity of housing choice within the City.

The proposed conditional rezoning is consistent with the goals of the City’s Master Plan. 2) The site features and proposed use for two-family dwelling appear to be compatible with the

surrounding uses and zoning of R-2 and C-2. 3) City infrastructure appears to be sufficient to support the potential uses permitted in the requested

zoning district.

Conditions 1) Prior to final site plant approval by City Staff, the Developer and the City will enter into the

Conditional Rezoning Agreement approved by the City Attorney and recorded with the property. 2) Developer agrees to go before the City of Ferndale Zoning Board of Appeals to seek a variance lot

width of approximately 2 feet. 3) Upon receiving approval from the City of Ferndale Zoning Board of Appeals, Developer aggress to

construct a residential residence complaint with the R-@ district zoning and obtain a certificate of occupancy from the City of Ferndale Building Department no later than three (3) years from the date of the final rezoning approval.

24

25

FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES: INTENDED USE AND CHARACTER

Traditional Residential areas account for a vast majority of the city and generally correspond with the R-1 zoning district. The predominant housing type is the single-family house on a 35-foot-wide or larger parcel located within a connected urban street grid, but may also include compatible low-density housing types, such as townhouses and duplexes.

These areas also encourage a small-scale mix of neighborhood-serving amenities and services, including schools, parks, religious institutions, government buildings, and retail, which help define many of Ferndale’s neighborhoods and contribute to their walkability. Non-residential uses should not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhoods in terms of traffic, parking, noise, or hours of operation.

New developments should be compatible with the existing neighborhood fabric in terms of building design and materials, placement, and scale to preserve each area’s established character.

LAND USE | 35FERNDALE MASTER PLAN 2017

26

.JOHN B CISSEL PROPERTIES LLC .CONDITIONAL REZONING AGREEMENT

This Conditional Rezoning Agreement, ("Agreement"), submitted pursuant to Section 14.05 of the City of Ferndale Zoning Ordinance# 1087 and dated April 2, 2019, is entered into by and between John B Cissel, President of John B Cissel Prope1ties a Michigan limited liability company, 931 West Drayton, Ferndale, MI 48220, ("Developer"), and the City of Ferndale, a Michigan Municipal Corporation, with principal offices at 300 E. Nine Mile Road, Ferndale, MI 48220, ("City") .

. RECITALS.:

A. Developer is the owner of certain real property located in the City of Ferndale, Oakland County, Michigan, with the following legal description:

25-34-253-022 Section 34, The Little Farms Sub, Lot 49

Also known as 133 University, Ferndale, MI 48220, ("Property").

B. Developer has applied for conditional rezoning of the Property pursuant to Article 14, Section 14.05 of the City's Zoning Ordinance #1087, from the Parking District to R-2 District.

C. As part of the rezoning of the Property from the Parking District to the R-2, and with the City's approval of this Agreement, Developer has offered and agrees to certain conditions with respect to the use of the Prope1ty. Any conditions, representations, or promises included in the Agreement have been voluntarily offered by the Developer to induce the City to rezone the Property to the proposed classification.

D. Developer agree upon the following findings: (i) the conditional rezoning is consistent with the goals, policies and the City of Ferndale Master Plan; (ii) the conditional rezoning is compatible with the Property's physical, geological, hydrological and other environmental features; (iii) with the conditional rezoning, the Property remains compatible with all the potential uses allowed in the proposed zoning district with surrounding uses and zoning in terms of land suitability, impacts on the environment, density, nature of use, traffic impacts, aesthetics, infrastructure and potential influence on property values; (iv) the capacity of the City infrastructure and services is sufficient to accommodate the uses permitted in the requested zoning district without compromising the health, safety and welfare of the City; (v) there is apparent demand for the types of uses permitted by the conditional rezoning in the City in relation to the amount of land in the City currently zoned to accommodate the demand.

E. For the purpose of confirming the rights, obligations and restrictions in connection with the l

27

improvements and development to be undertaken on the Property, the pa11ies have entered into this Agreement. These Recitals constitute part of this Agreement.

ARTICLE 1 .CONDITIONS FOR REZONING.

1. 1 Conditions: In consideration for the City's rezoning of the Property from its current Parking District to the R-2 (General Commercial District) district, Developer offers and agrees to be bound by the following conditions:

I) Prior to final site plan approval by City Staff, the Developer and the City will enter into this Conditional Rezoning Agreement approved by the City Attorney and recorded with the Property;

2) Developer agrees to go before the city of Ferndale Zoning Board of Appeals to seek a variance in lot width of approximately 2'.

3) Upon receiving approval from the city of Ferndale Zoning Board of Appeals, Developer agrees to construct a residential residence in compliance with the R-2 district zoning and obtain a ce11ificate of occupancy from the city of Ferndale building department no later than (3) Three years from the date of the final rezoning approval.

ARTICLE2 REZONING

2.1 Rezoning Effective: The City acknowledges and confirms that City Council has passed a resolution to amend the City Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map to rezone the Property from Parking District to R-2 District, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The City's Zoning Map shall be amended to reflect the new zoning classification, and that such new zoning classification is subject to this Agreement. The conditional rezoning approval and the amendment to the Zoning Map shall become effective when this Agreement is recorded with the Oakland County Register of Deeds.

ARTICLE3 D EVELOPER'S RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

3.1 Right to Develop: Developer shall have the right to use and develop the Property in accordance with this Agreement. Developer shall submit a site plan showing any proposed modifications and improvements to the Property to the Community Development Department for administrative approval by City Staff.

3.2 Compliance with Agreement: The Property shall not be developed or used in any manner that is not consistent with this Agreement.

3.3 Expiration: in the event that the rezoning under this Agreement expires and becomes void in accordance

2 28

29

30

31

May 15, 2019 Community & Economic Development

CITY OF FERNDALEREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION

FROM: Justin Lyons

SUBJECT: M-1 (Limited Industrial) Ordinance Amendment Discussion

INTRODUCTIONStaff has continued to explore potential changes to the M-1 (Limited Industrial) zoning regulations based onrecommendations in the Master Plan.

SUMMARY & BACKGROUNDPlease review the attached memo and draft ordinance.

BUDGETARY CONTEXTN/A

CIP#N/A

ATTACHMENTS20190515-M-1 Industrial Sub-Discussion Item Packet.pdf

STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXTEconomic Prosperity

RECOMMENDED ACTION

32

1

To: Plan Commission From: Justin Lyons, Planning Manager Date: May 9, 2019 Re: M-1 Industrial Ordinance Discussion

Staff has continued to explore potential changes to the M-1 (Limited Industrial) zoning regulations based on recommendations in the Master Plan. Throughout 2018, a discussion was held at the Planning Commission, two meetings were held with a subcommittee of business owners, residents, and property owners, and Planning Commissioners toured a portion of the M-1 district. Guiding Principles Based on feedback from the Master Plan, subcommittee, and the Planning Commission, staff narrowed down some guiding principles for the proposed amendments, listed below:

• Preserve long-time businesses and uses due to limited industrial space in Ferndale • Support new businesses and uses that fit the innovative, entrepreneurial character of the

district • Acknowledge the changing nature of “industrial” in today’s district • Improve accessibility for businesses and visitors and incorporate sustainability with future

infrastructure improvements • Guide new development design and form, while encouraging reuse of existing buildings and art • Provide users in the area with nearby services and amenities, which helps attract talent

Master Plan Recommendations The Master Plan paid close attention to the Industrial Sub-District with a specific market study and recommendations focusing on protecting the existing character, while supporting the evolving nature of “industrial” and promoting job growth. Elsewhere in the plan, L1.6 recommends exploring form-based code where a more mixed-use walkable pattern is anticipated, which staff has incorporated into the most recent draft. More recent discussions with the Planning Commission have expressed less of a need for residential/loft in the district due to the housing units proposed in the downtown and elsewhere throughout the City.

A. LAND USE – GOAL 3 - Protect and support the Industrial Sub-District to allow new uses while preserving its functionality and character.

a. L3.1: Allow the conversion of industrial space to residential use (“lofts”) in the Industrial Sub-District subject to a special land use permit and “loft review criteria.”

b. L3.2: Create an appropriate street typology for roadways within the Industrial Sub-District with contextual considerations such as the accommodation of large trucks and multiple users.

c. L3.3: Identify opportunities to integrate green stormwater infrastructure in the Industrial Sub-District and implement. 33

2

B. ECONOMIC VITALITY – GOAL 2 - Foster a modern Industrial Sub-District that supports job growth and a small-scale mix of new commercial uses.

a. E2.1: Promote property and business owner organization in the Industrial Sub-District. b. E2.2: Encourage small- to medium-scale retail storefronts associated with on-site

production and manufacturing. i. Promote accessory retail associated with production to existing business

owners. ii. Consider restaurant/bar as a permitted ancillary use to on-site principal use.

iii. Consider non-ancillary retail and restaurant/bar as permitted but limited (e.g., limited by square footage) uses.

A draft ordinance is attached that incorporates feedback from the subcommittee and the Planning Commission. Staff will also provide additional information at Wednesday’s meeting to continue the discussion. Members of the subcommittee have been invited to attend the discussion at Wednesday’s Planning Commission meeting.

34

 

 

ARTICLE VI. ‐ INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS  Sec. 24‐101. ‐ Intent.  (a) M-1 light industrial district. The M-1 district is designed to accommodate industrial, warehouse and

similar uses that generate minimal noise, glare, odors, dust, vibration, air and water pollution, fire and safety hazards, potentially harmful or obnoxious matter, radiation or other potential nuisances. The district can support a limited amount of retail to encourage re-use of existing structures and provide users in the area with nearby services and amenities.

(b) M-2 general industrial district. The M-2 district is designed to accommodate manufacturing, assembly, industrial, wholesale, industrial warehouses and similar uses. It is the purpose of these regulations to permit the development of certain functions, but to protect the surrounding areas from incompatible industrial activities and to restrict the intrusion of non-related uses such as residential, retail business and commercial establishments.

(Ord. No. 1087, § 6.01, 3-8-10)

Sec. 24‐102. ‐ Uses.  

Industrial Districts  Permitted (P) and Special Land Uses (S)  

 M‐1  

M‐2  

Additional  Requirements 

Health Care Facilities:  

Medical, dental and physical therapy offices, clinics, medical and dental laboratories and similar uses (overnight patient not permitted)  

P   —    

Provisioning center and safety compliance facility, licensed as a marihuana facility under the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act.  

P   P    

Entertainment and Recreational:  

Banquet halls   S   S    

Gun ranges and clubs   S   S    

Health, fitness and exercise clubs  P  _   

Participatory recreation and amusement services (bowling alleys, swim clubs, court sports, roller and ice skating rinks, billiard halls and miniature golf, excluding go‐cart 

tracks)  P   —    

Service, Retail and Office:  

Accessory retail associated with principal use   P   P    

Accessory restaurant use associated with production, including outdoor dining  S  _   

Artisan and creative industry use with studio space  P  _   

Business service establishments (including printing and photocopying services, mail and packaging services, data processing and office support services and similar uses)  

P   —    

Computer service centers and similar uses (including maintenance of electronic equipment)  

P   —    

Greenhouses and retail landscaping establishments (with outside storage and sales)   S   P    

Pet boarding facility   P   P  Section 24‐

167  

35

 

 

Production facilities with accessory retail sales space of 5,000 square feet or less, including that have a minimum of 20% floor area dedicated to retail sales (production of 

consumer goods such as food, beverages, art, clothing),  P   P    

Production facilities with accessory retail sales space of greater than 5,000 square feet (production of consumer goods such as food, beverages, art, clothing) 

S  S   

Research and development centers   P   P    

Self‐storage facilities   S   S  Section 24‐

157  

Shops of interior decorators, building trades, caterers, blue printers and similar services   P   P    

Vehicle repair, major   P   P  Section 24‐

161  

Vehicle repair, minor   P   P  Section 24‐

161  

Wireless communication facilities   P   P    

Public, Institutional and Utilities:  

Business and technical schools   P   P    

Essential services, associated buildings   S   S    

Essential services, substations   —   S    

Parking structures   S   S  Section 24‐

153  

Trade and vocational schools   P   P    

Industrial:  

Commercial laundry facilities, but not including dry‐cleaning plants   P   P    

Contractor's offices and storage yards   S   S  Section 24‐

144  

Dry cleaning plants   —   S    

Freight yards and freight buildings   —   S    

Manufacturing, machining, processing, packaging and assembling including, but not limited to: appliances; millwork, cabinetry and furniture; stone, clay, glass and leather 

products; beverages and food products; scientific, technical and mechanical instruments; heating, cooling and ventilating equipment, HVAC sheet metal; signs; tool 

and die shops; and miscellaneous items (musical instruments, cosmetics, optical devices, electronics) and similar uses  

P   P    

Manufacturing, processing, packaging and assembling including, but not limited to: steel; plastic products (laminate, pipe, plumbing products, miscellaneous molded or extruded products); sawmills, planing mills, paper and wood products, prefabricated buildings, wood structural members and other lumber operations and similar uses  

—   P    

Material distribution centers, wholesale establishments, warehouses (whether or not refrigerated) and general storage facilities  

P   P    

Recycling facilities   —   S  Section 24‐

154  

36

 

 

Reuse facilities   S   S  Section 24‐

156  

Manufacturing, processing or assembling of biochemical, biological, medicinal, or pharmaceutical products  

S   S    

Solvent recovery centers and facilities handling, manufacturing, blending, refining, using or storing chemicals deemed hazardous by state or federal regulations  

—   S    

Vehicle storage facility, indoor   S   P  Section 24‐

162  

Vehicle storage facility, outdoor   —   S  Section 24‐

162  

Wind energy conversion systems (WECS)   S   S  Section 24‐

163  

Prohibited Uses:  

Incinerators; refineries; junkyards and recycling facilities; compost; fertilizer manufacturing; storage and processing of construction debris, explosives or solid, liquid, hazardous or landscape waste  

(Ord. No. 1087, § 6.02, 3-8-10; Ord. No. 1098, Pt. I, 8-23-10; Ord. No. 1129, Pt. I, 7-9-12; Ord. No. 1216 , Pt. I, 5-14-18)

Sec. 24‐103. ‐ Schedule of regulations.  

Height Proposed Existing Feet (max) 50’ 50’ Siting Build-to Primary frontage (min % of lot width/min-max build-to)1

80% / 0'-15' 15’

Secondary frontage (min % of lot width/min-max build-to)

30% / 0'-15'

Setbacks Side, adjacent to residential district (min) 15'

10’

Rear, adjacent to residential district (min) 20’ 5’-10’ Rear, above third story (when adjacent to R-1 or R-2)

35’

Parking Surface parking between building and frontage

Not allowed Not allowed

Parking setback (min) 15’ Vehicle access From alley; when no

alley present or alley

37

 

 

less than 20’ wide, per Sec. 24-225

Design Elements Ground Floor Fenestration Primary frontage (min) 20% Secondary frontage (min) 10% Pedestrian Access Primary frontage Min. one entrance per

75'

Private Open Area Minimum 10%

Notes;

a. Where 50 percent or more of the frontage on the same side of the street within 600 feet has previously been built, then principal buildings hereafter constructed shall have a minimum front setback established by using the average depth of the yards on the lots so constructed, measured from the forwardmost edge of construction. No improvements may encroach upon the front setback.

b. Setbacks are not required where the side or rear property line is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way.

c. Where a side or rear yard abuts a public street or alley that is not adjacent to residentially zoned property, the required minimum setback shall be no less than five feet. However, if the façade that abuts the alley or street consist of an unpierced wall of fireproof construction with a parapet extending 18 inches or more above the adjoining roof construction, the building may be extended or constructed to the lot line.

(Ord. No. 1087, § 6.03, 3-8-10)

Secs. 24‐104—24‐120. ‐ Reserved.  

 Add to Definitions: Artisan and creative industry use with studio space (via GR): A use conducted for the production of quality products by skilled craft persons usually involving workers who practice a trade or handicraft and produces products in limited quantities often using traditional methods involving the use of hand tools and small‐scale, light mechanical equipment. This may include activities which are concerned with knowledge and information, such as advertising, architecture, art, crafts, design, fashion, film, music, performing arts, publishing, software, toys and games, TV and radio, and video games. 

 Create Design Guidelines: 

Encourage renovation of existing buildings for a contemporary, mixture of uses.  

Rooftop mechanical units should be set back from building facades, screened, and located to reduce their visibility and potential noise. 

Building additions shall be visually compatible with the existing building. Design should align with the general historic and architectural characteristics of the building, property, or district. 

38

 

 

Materials should be compatible with the property and with the district, including color and texture. Properties adjacent to Residential districts (for example, Bermuda, Woodward Heights, and _) shall be included in considering architectural compatibility. Alternative materials, such as glass, metal, and wood, may be incorporated in rooftop additions. Materials such as rough wood, synthetic stucco (EFIS), vinyl siding, and split face concrete block, are not compatible. 

Primary facades should include a storefront, display windows, porticos, or entryways to provide visibility toward the street. 

Buildings longer than 100 feet shall be divided into façade planes that are offset by at least 2 feet from the rest of the façade on the primary frontage. 

A triangular area shall be kept unobstructed at each intersection to provide visibility. That triangular area shall be delineated by the lot lines and a line connecting them at points ten feet from the corner, or in the case of a rounded corner, from the intersection of the lot lines extended. 

Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" +Indent at: 0.5"

39