Birmingham BZA approves variances for large mixed‑use project at Woodward and East Maple

The Birmingham Board of Zoning Appeals on June 13 approved three variances for a mixed‑use development at 34952 Woodward and 690 East Maple, clearing the way for an extra parking level, additional floor area in each building portion, and a 3‑foot height exception on the smaller MU5 portion of the site.

Nick Dewi, the city’s planning director, told the board the project spans two zoning overlays (MU5 and MU7 within the Triangle overlay) and seeks bonus height that requires meeting prescribed public‑benefit criteria, including providing public parking. He summarized the requested variances as an additional story in the MU7 portion, an additional story in the MU5 portion, and a 3‑ft height variance above the MU5 maximum of 66 feet.

John Gabber, attorney for the applicant (Williams Ratner & Plunkett, representing Beztec Company), emphasized the parking rationale: the project proposes 422 total spaces with 173 reserved for public use, and "the mezzanine provides an additional 76 parking spaces," he said. The applicant’s team argued the inserted floor functions as a mezzanine only in footprint but counts as a floor under building code if more than half of the level below is occupied, which is why the variance was requested.

Counsel and the project architect explained the 3‑ft height variance results from the city’s requirement to measure height from an average grade plane on a sloping site. The applicant said the lot drops roughly five feet from front to rear; measuring to the midpoint averages that slope and yields a three‑foot exceedance on the MU5 portion where a rooftop pool deck is proposed. Counsel told the board strict enforcement would eliminate the pool deck or force loss of an entire floor in the MU5 portion.

Board members pressed staff and the applicant on technical details: how average grade is calculated in the Triangle overlay, whether grading changes could eliminate the exceedance, how parapets and mechanical screening are treated, and how public parking would be demarcated. City staff and the applicant said the planning commission had conditioned its site‑plan approvals on a future lot combination and suggested any variance approval be tied to final plans and lot‑combination approval so the public parking commitment is enforceable.

After questions and public comment (none), a motion to approve the three variances carried on a roll‑call vote. The board tied approval to the submitted plans and the public‑parking commitments that were part of the planning‑board review.

What happens next: staff and the applicant will carry conditions into final site‑plan documents. If the applicant pursues lot combination and final site plan consistent with the conditions cited by the planning commission, building permit review and construction phases would follow. The board’s action was limited to the variances presented and conditioned in the record.