Planning board accepts impact study for large Woodward–Maple development, delays site-plan vote over parking dispute

The Birmingham Planning Board on Wednesday accepted a community impact study (CIS) for a proposed mixed-use development at 3492 Woodward and 690 East Maple but postponed action on the preliminary site plan so staff, the applicant and outside consultants can reconcile conflicting parking calculations and a requested legal interpretation.

The developer, BezTek, proposes a large mixed-use building with roughly 224–228 residential units, more than 15,000 square feet of retail space (about 5,000 square feet of restaurant space) and multiple levels of concealed parking. Planning Director Nick Dupuis told the board the project is roughly 540,000 square feet, which triggers the CIS requirement. Dupuis said the two-parcel site sits in MU-5 and MU-7 districts, and that the additional interior level the applicant seeks will require a Board of Zoning Appeals review because it reads as an extra story under the code.

Why it matters: The project would add significant housing and new public parking in the Triangle District but also raises questions about how the city counts parking toward bonus-story incentives. The board accepted the CIS to document anticipated impacts while reserving judgment on whether the development satisfies the ordinance’s public-parking requirement that enables bonus height.

Board members and staff spent the bulk of the discussion on parking math and legal interpretation. Under the zoning ordinance the site’s private and commercial uses require 351 spaces; an additional public-parking obligation tied to the bonus stories is 198 spaces, yielding a combined ordinance total of 549 spaces. The applicant’s final drawings show 422 physical spaces on the site; after excluding compact and tandem stalls that do not meet the ordinance’s size standard, the developers say 397 spaces meet dimension requirements.

Stonefield Engineering, the applicant’s traffic consultant, used Urban Land Institute (ULI) shared-parking methods and said accounting for Birmingham’s vehicle-ownership rates and walkability produces a shared-parking demand of about 266 spaces for the development’s private uses plus the 198 public spaces the ordinance requires. Stonefield’s lead engineer, Nick Kennedy, told the board that under a shared-parking model the site would need substantially fewer dedicated private spaces than the ordinance baseline and that some daytime public parking would be available for nighttime residential demand.

But the city’s traffic consultant, Felice and Van den Berg, reviewed the applicant’s study and arrived at different recommended supply numbers using a different approach and assumptions. Planning Director Dupuis and several board members said the consultants’ disagreement produced two conflicting targets and that the board could not responsibly vote on a site-plan waiver until both technical reports are reconciled and the city attorney advises on whether public-accessible spaces that are used at night by residents can legitimately be counted as the ordinance’s “public” parking for the bonus-floor calculation.

Chair (name on record as the meeting chair) said the underlying legal question is whether the city may accept parking that the developer would otherwise have to provide as the public-good element enabling additional height. “If that’s allowed, the city would be effectively subsidizing required parking,” the chair said. Several board members echoed the need for a written city-attorney opinion and for the two consultant teams to meet and produce a single, reconciled set of assumptions before the board evaluates any parking waiver.

Developer Sam Besnos, chief executive of BezTek, told the board his company intends to own and operate the project long term and emphasized the public benefits of on-site parking in a part of the Triangle District where municipal parking is limited. “This site is the gateway into the city of Birmingham,” Besnos said. “The public parking we’ll provide is a benefit that won’t happen without a project like this.”

Environmental and safety reviews: Kevin Kruszewski, the applicant’s environmental consultant, summarized multiple environmental borings and a Phase I site assessment; he said the reports did not identify recognized environmental conditions requiring a Phase II investigation, and that clay soils and limited groundwater reduce vapor-intrusion risk. Fire and police departments provided standard code recommendations, and staff reported required stormwater detention sized to a 100-year design storm.

What the board did: After extended discussion the board voted unanimously to accept the community impact study with conditions that the applicant resolve issues raised by the city’s traffic consultant and comply with all CIS recommendations. The board then agreed to postpone the preliminary site-plan decision and design-review items until its April 22, 2026 meeting so the applicant’s and city’s traffic consultants can reconcile methodology and numbers and the city attorney can issue guidance on the ordinance interpretation.

Next steps: Staff will add the consultant reconciliation and any city-attorney guidance to the packet for the April meeting. The applicant’s team said it will continue to refine site-plan details and circulate updated parking and circulation exhibits ahead of the follow-up hearing.