Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Outdoor Dining 168 West Maple topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Birmingham planning board postpones outdoor-dining proposal at 168 West Maple over ADA and design gaps
Summary
The Planning Board postponed final action on an outdoor-dining platform proposed for 168 West Maple, citing missing dimensions, unclear existing-condition plans and concerns about relocating an ADA parking stall; staff asked the applicant to remove a planter from an ADA curb cut and provide engineered verification of any parking change.
The Planning Board for the City of Birmingham voted unanimously June 11 to postpone consideration of a final site plan for an outdoor dining platform at 168 West Maple, citing incomplete plans and potential Americans with Disabilities Act compliance issues.
Staff presented the application and recommended approval subject to conditions, noting the proposal would add four tables (12 chairs) and two planters but that one planter as drawn sits within an ADA curb cut. Miss Blinsky told the board that revised plans are required to remove the planter from the curb cut, provide planting details and include a scaled side view showing the deck and railing heights. Staff said the project displaces one on-street ADA-accessible parking space; the applicant would be required to reimburse the city's costs if the city relocates that space.
Board members pressed for additional engineering review and clearer dimensions. "We would require a formal professional opinion from the city's consultant engineers," Miss Blinsky said, noting staff had only received informal guidance from engineers who worked on the street.
An unidentified board member warned that moving a designated ADA space for a seasonal deck could create recurring compliance problems if the deck is removed seasonally, saying, "I have serious concerns about the entire idea of relocating an ADA accessible parking space...it would have to be relocated again." That member emphasized the city engineer and the city attorney should sign off on any interpretation of the ADA space.
The applicant, Jacqueline, said her family owns the restaurant and asked whether the platform could be shifted one space east of the ADA stall to avoid relocation; she also explained some materials arrived late and apologized for missing packet items. The board noted it could not accept new documentation at the meeting for formal review.
After discussion and no public comment, the board voted to postpone the application so the applicant can supply the missing details and, if needed, obtain formal engineering documentation before returning to the board.
The board did not set a new return date; board members said postponement would allow the applicant to come back as soon as the materials are complete.
