BZA approves frontage relief but denies three-foot height variance for InvestWise building at Woodward gateway

The Birmingham Board of Zoning Appeals voted Wednesday to approve a street-frontage variance but denied a separate three‑foot height variance for a proposed InvestWise office building at 36977 Woodward, after extended testimony and technical questioning about roof height, eave lines and mechanical needs.

City planner Summer Aldred Ahrens told the board the project is proposed for a vacant, oddly shaped corner lot at Horton and Woodward and that the applicant’s current design places the building frontage where necessary to accommodate a drive aisle and required parking. She summarized the two variance requests: (a) relief from the ordinance’s façade/street-frontage standard — the applicant’s façade occupies roughly 96.1 feet of frontage, yielding a requested variance summarized in the packet as 13.6% (about 21.3 feet) — and (b) a height variance from the 42‑foot maximum to a proposed peak at 45 feet (three‑foot relief) to accommodate a glazed conservatory element at the corner.

Architect Jeff Klatt and the InvestWise team said the lot geometry and required parking force a compact footprint and a drive aisle placement that leave little room to lengthen the building without losing parking or creating unsafe turning movements. Klatt described the third‑floor conservatory as a partially conditioned glass volume that functions as a rooftop amenity and argued floor‑to‑floor heights, plenum space for ductwork and rooftop systems make it difficult to lower the proposed peak without losing the intended interior volume or creating a bulkier alternative.

Board members pressed the applicant for alternatives and engineering substantiation. Several commissioners asked to see the pitch scenarios, flat-roof options and exact sectional dimensions; staff explained that ordinance interpretation around eave-line limits (34 feet for sloped roofs in the code) as written may create the pinch point even if the peak is under a separate maximum. The board gave the applicant the option to postpone the height request while engineers finalized sections, but the applicant said financing and timeline made returning difficult.

A member moved to approve the frontage relief (a) because the lot’s unusual shape and long vacancy present a special condition, and to deny the ornamental height relief (b) because the applicant had not demonstrated a special condition that would make the higher decorative element necessary. Other members argued the height relief was small and beneficial for the city gateway. On roll call the split motion carried 4–3: Carl Connor, Donald Rogers, Eric Bogeroff and Ron Reddy voted to approve frontage and deny height; Evan Hart, Richard Lilly and John Miller voted against the split motion. The chair announced the frontage variance approved and the height variance denied.

The board’s decision leaves InvestWise able to proceed with the approved frontage relief while the rooftop conservatory design must be revised to conform to the 42‑foot eave/midpoint interpretation or the applicant may pursue other options, such as completing the engineering and returning with a revised, better‑documented hardship case.