Board delays decision on Birmingham Towers after hours-long parking dispute with neighboring condo owners

The Birmingham Planning Board on March 26 postponed without date final site-plan action on the Birmingham Towers project at 479 S. Old Woodward after a prolonged discussion and large public turnout focused on parking and the enforceability of any shared-parking arrangement with the adjacent Birmingham Place condominium.

Nick Dupuy, planning department staff, outlined the applicant’s requested change: converting a previously approved fourth-floor residential layer to office use and keeping the fifth floor residential, which changes the building’s parking requirements because the ordinance sets off-street parking by use. Under the proposal, Floors 1–4 would be commercial/office and Floor 5 would remain residential; the applicant’s calculations showed the site would be short 49 parking spaces on site, leaving 88 spaces provided where the revised use mix would require more.

The applicant’s representative, Dorade Marcus, who said he represents the owner interests in the development and commercial units at nearby Birmingham Place, told the board the owner is negotiating with potential tenants (including a furniture showroom) and argued the adjacent Birmingham Place building has unused commercial parking that could be shared. Marcus said the Birmingham Place master board controls parking policy and that the residential underground level is reserved for residents and would not be used by tenants in 479.

Planning staff reviewed the ordinance provisions the applicant hoped to use — the collective/shared-provisions clause in Article 4, Section 4.45 (methods of providing off-street parking) — and reported a major discrepancy between the applicant’s math and staff’s count of how many excess spaces could be used from Birmingham Place; staff estimated approximately 24 excess spaces at Birmingham Place under the ordinance reductions, while the applicant argued there would be more. The planning staff also noted a prior 2023 variance that had allowed an 11-space reduction was tied to an earlier plan and would not carry forward to the new proposed use mix, increasing the shortfall.

A lengthy public comment period followed. Multiple Birmingham Place condominium residents and representatives — including a resident attorney representing the residential condominium association — told the board the property governance and master-deed documents limit or preclude leasing or conveying common-element parking to outside parties, and they said the master board cannot unilaterally give away parking assigned as common elements. Those speakers urged the planning board not to assume Birmingham Place could or would provide parking unless the parties produced a written, enforceable agreement and required condominium approvals.

Board members said they were not persuaded there was written, enforceable authorization for the use of Birmingham Place parking and asked for clarified legal documentation and a binding, recorded agreement before approving any use of shared spaces to meet the new development’s parking requirement. Several board members also asked the planning department to provide a clear definition/summary of how the ordinance treats “retail/retail commercial,” “office,” and other commercial categories because the parking factors change materially by use.

Because no documented agreement or clear legal pathway for the proposed intra-building parking transfers was before the board — and following a member recusal by a board member who said a law firm he works for is a prospective tenant — the board voted to postpone consideration without date.

Why it matters: the developer argues the change will produce retail and office space the downtown seeks, while condo owners say shared parking could reduce resident convenience and potentially lower property values. The issue raises questions about ordinance interpretation, condominium law and the limits of shared-parking mechanics in dense downtown settings.

Next steps: the planning department will provide clarifications about ordinance calculations and the board said any future return should include documented, enforceable agreements (and legal opinions) showing Birmingham Place owners have authority to convey or lease the claimed parking and a clearer, audited parking-demand assessment for likely tenant types.