Planning board recommends denial of parking waiver and site-plan changes for 479 S. Old Woodward

The Birmingham Planning Board voted 6–1 on July 23 to recommend that the City Commission deny both a special land use permit and a final site-plan and design-review amendment for 479 South Old Woodward (the Birmingham Tower), after staff and several residents said the proposal would create an on-site parking deficit the public system could not absorb.

The project team wants to change the building’s approved mix — shifting a residential floor to commercial use so the building would have two commercial floors, two office floors and one residential floor. Planning staff told the board that change increases the site’s required spaces and leaves the project 49 spaces short of the zoning requirement even after previously granted reductions and variances.

Planning director Nick Dupuis said staff’s technical review focused on the parking analysis and concluded the application did not meet site-plan standards because of the gap between required and provided parking. “They’re short 49,” Dupuis said during his presentation, and later, “we don't feel they meet the standards of site plan review in this case due to the the significant, gap between the required and provided parking.”

Why it matters: The planning department’s memo concluded the 49-space deficit would have to be absorbed by Birmingham’s public parking system. Nearby residents and business owners warned that would shift parking demand onto streets and the adjacent Birmingham Place condominium parking, aggravating congestion for neighbors and customers and potentially harming downtown businesses.

Project history and the requested change

The property at 479 South Old Woodward is under construction as a five-story mixed-use building that had been entitled with retail on the first floor, two floors of office and two floors of residential. The applicant, identified at the hearing as Birmingham Tower Partners, seeks an amendment to make the second floor commercial and reduce residential units on upper floors. The site contains two below-grade parking levels and surface parking; staff recorded 88 on-site parking spaces in the currently approved plan and noted the project previously received an 11-space variance in 2023 and additional B3 zoning reductions.

Applicant position

Developer representative Dorade Marcus told the board that market conditions have changed and that the applicant is pursuing a tenant concept — identified in the hearing materials as Gardner White’s GW Studios — that makes the revised floor mix preferable. Marcus described the change as an effort to produce a viable, long-term building and asked the board to apply a zoning provision enacted for this property. Ethan Holt, counsel for the applicant, urged the board to interpret the application under Article 3, Section 3.04(d)(3)(a) of the city zoning ordinance, which he said “was enacted specifically for this property.” Holt argued the ordinance’s purpose was to allow this parcel to be treated as if it were in the former Parking Assessment District and that applying that lens would support the waiver request.

Staff analysis and technical memo

Staff reviewed a technical memo submitted by the applicant’s consultant that relied on a March snapshot of capacity in nearby Peabody and Pierce parking structures. Traffic consultant Jill Bauer confirmed the study used March parking counts supplied by the city and said the team did not analyze data from other months or explicitly model future development in the former Parking Assessment District. Dupuis and staff maintained that using a single-month snapshot and not accounting for entitled or forthcoming projects understates likely long-term demand.

Public comment and board concerns

Multiple residents of the adjacent Birmingham Place condominium association urged denial. Kate McNevin, a Birmingham Place resident, asked the board to “deny both the special land use permit, the slop, and the site plan amendment for this project,” saying the 49-space deficit would spill into neighborhood and on-street parking. Other residents and business owners highlighted similar concerns and questioned the March data, noting seasonal variation and upcoming developments such as the RH (Restoration Hardware) and other projects that were not included in the applicant's snapshot.

Board action and findings

Board member Mr. Williams moved and Mr. Boyle seconded findings that adopt the planning department report and add several conclusions, including that the applicant had not shown an excess supply of residential housing downtown or an exceptional retail shortage that would justify two commercial floors; that the master plan encourages residential uses downtown; and that the site plan fails to comply with the zoning ordinance because of a shortage of at least 49 on-site parking spaces. The board’s motion also cited merchant complaints about limited southern Old Woodward parking and noted the applicant’s parking study did not account for the RH and other near-term developments.

The motion to recommend denial of the special land use permit carried, 6–1, with Stuart Jeffries the lone dissent. The board then moved to recommend denial of the final site-plan and design-review amendment on substantially the same grounds; that motion also passed 6–1. The planning board’s recommendations will be forwarded to the City Commission for a final decision at a public hearing scheduled for August 11, 2025.

What the votes mean

If the city commission approves the board’s recommendation, the applicant could either pursue a different mix that meets on-site parking requirements or seek further variances or zoning changes from the commission. Planning staff emphasized the planning board's role is advisory for the special land use permit and final decisions rest with the City Commission.

Pending items and next steps

The planning board packet and staff memo are part of the administrative record and were adopted into the board’s findings. The City Commission will hold a public hearing on August 11, 2025; the planning board’s denial recommendation and the staff analysis will be considered at that hearing.