Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Ordinance Impervious Surfaces Open Space topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board recommends City Commission adopt tighter definitions on impervious surfaces and updated single-family open-space standards

Planning Board for the City of Birmingham
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board voted unanimously to recommend ordinance amendments clarifying the definition of impervious surface (removing stone/gravel from impervious restrictions) and to add/modify open-space standards for single-family zones, including minimum vegetated open-space language; staff read drafted language and the board approved sending the changes to the City Commission.

The Planning Board unanimously recommended the City Commission adopt proposed amendments to zoning ordinance sections addressing impervious surfaces and open-space standards after a public hearing on June 11.

Staff explained the changes aim to clarify the definition of impervious surface—specifically the role of stone or gravel—and to modernize open-space standards for single-family zones. The proposal adds open-space standards that the staff characterized as requiring a high percentage of vegetated open space; during the read-back staff referenced a "minimum of 75% vegetated open space" for some new open-space language and separately read language noting a "minimum of 65% of the front open space shall be vegetated" in section 4.31.

Staff said permeable pavers and semi-hardscape materials would not count as vegetated open space and that the goal is consistency with low-impact design and current stormwater-management practice.

No members of the public offered comments during the hearing. Following brief board confirmation that the language read as intended, the board moved to recommend approval to the City Commission; the motion passed unanimously.

The planning director asked the board to avoid revisiting substantive changes at the joint meeting and said staff had incorporated changes from earlier meetings. The board scheduled a joint meeting with the City Commission for Monday the 16th to discuss this and one other topic.