Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Outdoor Dining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Birmingham officials to study outdoor dining platforms after complaints about parking and accessibility
Summary
Planning staff reported 48 outdoor-dining permits citywide with about 15 raised platforms. Commissioners asked the planning board to study caps, adjacency rules, ADA implications and fairness to businesses; staff will return with counts, maps and legal analysis.
Planning staff told the June 16 joint meeting that outdoor dining platforms have surged downtown and asked whether the planning board should study limits on number, density or placement.
"We just, in the last 2 or 3 months, received applications for 3 more platforms, 2 of which have been approved, 1 of which is still in the process," Mr. Dupuy said, and staff noted there are 48 outdoor-dining permits overall and about 15 raised platforms concentrated in the core downtown.
Chairman Klein said the board does not see an immediate crisis but flagged specific concerns: adjacency, loss of accessible parking and traffic constraints when platforms sit opposite each other. "I don't know that anybody on the planning board would come in here today and tell you that we think have a major problem with outdoor dining," he said, but added that the sudden clustering — four decks on Hamilton Row, for example — “made our antenna just go up.”
Commissioners pressed on whether platforms may displace handicap parking. Commissioner Hay said taking an accessible space would be a nonstarter: "I don't think you can persuade me" to remove a handicap parking spot. Planning members responded that ADA guidance and curb-ramp locations complicate relocating barrier-free spaces and that legal and practical limits apply.
Other questions included whether platforms are consistently used (some are busy, others sit empty), how to enforce minimum use, whether existing permits would be grandfathered if rules change, and whether block-level percentage caps or adjacency limits would be equitable. Commissioners also noted platforms represent significant private investment and urged fair, transparent policy — one commissioner described platform construction and storage costs and permitting expense as a material business investment.
Direction and next steps: commissioners asked the planning board to study platform density, adjacency, historic trends, ADA implications and potential permit policy changes (including fee structure) and to return with maps and data over time. No ordinance changes or caps were adopted at the meeting.
