Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Birmingham planning board delays decision on Woodward mixed‑use project after contentious parking debate
Loading...
Summary
The planning board postponed preliminary review of a proposed 9–10‑story mixed‑use building at Woodward and Maple to May 13 after weeks of debate over a requested parking waiver and whether the developer’s shared‑parking plan would provide the ordinance’s required 198 public spaces.
The Birmingham Planning Board on April 22 postponed a preliminary site‑plan review for 34952 Woodward and 690 East Maple after lengthy debate about parking requirements tied to bonus building height.
The board’s discussion centered on a city zoning provision that grants bonus stories in the Triangle District only if an applicant provides an additional 198 public parking spaces. Planning Director Nick Dupuy told the board the ordinance treats the 198 spaces as separate from the building’s use‑required parking, and that the project’s mix of use‑required parking (344 spaces) plus the 198 public spaces would total 542 spaces under a plain‑language reading of the code. The applicant proposes 397 formal parking spaces plus roughly 25 compact/tandem stalls (the applicant and its traffic engineers count 422 including compact spaces).
Why it matters: the developer is seeking bonus floors that add residential units and allow the city to gain a public‑parking component on a site that has been largely vacant for years. Board members and consultants disagreed about whether shared‑parking management and compact stalls should satisfy the bonus requirement, and whether daytime public availability would be preserved if residents used the spaces overnight.
City traffic consultant Julie Kroll, who ran the proposal through a ULI shared‑parking model, said a supply of about 374 spaces (ULI standard) would yield an 89% peak occupancy at 10 p.m. and that the applicant’s on‑site proposal, including compact stalls, would fall within a reasonable shared‑parking range. Nicholas Kennedy, the applicant’s traffic engineer, concurred that the on‑site supply (422 including compact/tandem) would land in the 80–90% occupancy “sweet spot.”
The applicant team, represented by architect Victor Cirocchi and developer representative Sam Besnos (Beztec/Bestech), argued the economics of the project require the bonus floors and that removing them would eliminate the on‑site public‑parking component the city would otherwise gain. They said the proposed parking is well integrated (mostly concealed) and that management and signage could help preserve day‑time public availability.
Several board members pressed for safeguards and lower waiver percentages. Some members said they would be open to counting the 25 compact/tandem stalls in their discretion but described the applicant’s requested reduction (about a 41.8% shortfall if compact stalls are excluded; about 34.8% if included) as too large. Members suggested compromise options such as removing the corner restaurant (which the board estimated would add about 50 parking demand) or bringing the waiver request down to roughly 20–30% of use‑required parking.
Public comment: Birmingham resident David Blum urged caution, saying the corner is high‑impact and asking the board to catalogue all waivers the applicant seeks and to be careful about circulation, loading and the risk of on‑street spillover.
Outcome: The board unanimously approved two motions: first to designate the May 13 regular meeting as a hybrid meeting to consider site plans and study sessions; second to postpone site plan and design review for 34952 Woodward and 690 East Maple to that May 13 meeting. No waiver was approved at the April 22 meeting; the applicant was asked to return with reduced waiver scenarios, management plans for the public parking, and other mitigation options.
What’s next: The applicant will revise plans and return to the planning board on May 13 with alternate waiver scenarios and additional information on how on‑site parking would be managed to preserve daytime public availability.
