Planning & Zoning Committee - Regular Meeting

U today is Tuesday, January 13th. Uh so we'll call this meeting to order. Next up, we have consideration of the meeting minutes from the December 9th, 2025 meeting. Those are uh all in order. We'll entertain a motion to approve. I'm move approval of the December 9th meeting minutes 2025. All right. All in favor say I. I. I.

Those minutes are approved. Uh now we'll move on to our zoning cases. Um our first zoning case is ZAC 2025 uh- 9. This is a request to change change district boundaries from C1 to C2 in order to allow for the use of an event center, real estate office, and cigar shop. Uh, and this is located in the Huffman neighborhood. So, staff will review the case with us.

Yes, sir. Um, good afternoon. Um, I'm Kim Spurl. I serve as the city zoning administrator. Um, this is case ZAC 2025-9. Um, the property is located at 501 Huffman Road. Um, it consists of approximately 1.7 acres and is located within the Huffman Neighborhood Association. Um, as [snorts] you mentioned, counselor, the applicant is requesting to change zoning from C1, Neighborhood Business District, to C2, General Commercial District, in order to allow for the use of an event center, a real estate office, and a cigar shop. Um the surrounding zoning uses to the north and south are D3 single family residential and to the east and west is CC2 which is our contingency general commercial district. The applicant is proposing to use the existing building which is approximately 6,000 square feet as an event center, a real estate office and a cigar shop. Um the event center will contain an entertaining conference business center made up of seven offices, conference rooms, event room, kitchen facilities, and a cigar lounge with cocktails. There will be four employees and the hours of operation are planned to be from 700 a.m. to midnight and the space will be available for bookings any day of the week. The real estate office will operate from Monday to Friday from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Saturdays and Sundays are by appointment only. And they currently have 16 independent realtors who will utilize that space.

The cigar shop will operate Tuesday to Sunday from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. And that business will have one store manager and one independent part-time contractor. Um, according to the city's adopted long range land use plan, this property is identified as general commercial. Um, all of the proposed uses would be allowed in the C2 zoning classification. Um, if approved, however, a special exception would be required for the event center use. Um, that means that if the zoning is changed to C2, the applicant would have to apply for a special exception before the city zoning board of adjustment to allow for the event center. [snorts] Um, the city's landscape architect did not have any comments. Um, our storm water division did not have comments. This property is not located in a special flood hazard area. Um, there were also no comments from the Birmingham Department of Transportation. Um, this property is located in the Northeast Framework Plan area. Um, and the Huffman Neighborhood Association. The Huffman neighborhood met at its regularly scheduled meeting on October 27th, 2025, and they voted 13 to one to approve the resoning request. At its regularly scheduled meeting on November 18th, 2025, the zoning advisory committee met and they voted one vote to approve and three votes to deny the request. So, the zoning advisory committee did not recommend approval. Um, and there are maps in your packet that show the location as well as the site plan. Um, and the applicant um is here to answer any questions.

Sure. Um, could you provide any insight as to um the conversation that happened at zoning advisory committee? What what were their considerations? Um I think the zoning advisory committee actually recommended approval. I was present for it and the agenda shows that it recommended. Okay. Um I'll double check on that. Okay. Yeah, it might be a typo in the staff report. Let me double check. Okay. All right. All right. Go ahead. Tell us who you are and what you're doing. So, I'm the attorney representing the uh owner uh for the resoning request. Um as it's been previously

please speak into the mic we're broadcasting. As has been previously mentioned, we went before the neighborhood association. We presented our plan to them. Um they did recommend approval. We also presented to uh the advisory committee and again my recollection is they also uh recommended approval as well. Um so we've gone through the steps. We presented our plan uh to you all and to the advisory committee. I if you have any specific questions, I'm happy to answer those, but I think everything was covered. Okay. Thank you, sir. The only question I had is uh just curious to know if the event center or any of these businesses are operating in the building currently.

The uh the real estate office is currently operating as is the cigar shop. I believe the event center is the only one not currently operating. I believe that would require a um I assume that they're they mentioned cocktail. So, um it's going to they're going to need a permitting for alcohol. So, right, we know we have further this is just the first step. We know we have to uh get the special exception and if they want to serve alcohol, we also know we need the liquor license. Right. Right. Okay. Uh Council Woods, any questions? This is your district, right?

Right. Yeah, this is over in the Huffman neighborhood. Um, and they were in support of it. I think um it kind of breathes some life into a building that's been sitting empty for a little while. And so we we're uh supportive with that. And and I did just want to point one additional thing out in that this property is actually an outlier um in the area. Uh the remaining commercial uh businesses over there are already C2. And Mr. Chairman, it looks like that is a typo in the staff report. It should be the reverse. Three votes to approve. Yikes.

Yeah, that makes a big difference, doesn't it? Yeah, it does. Um, yeah, let's try to be careful about that. So, that definitely caught my attention. Okay. All right. Um, if there are no additional questions, is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. Sure. Motion to recommend. Recommend. All right. Sec. I'll second that. All in favor? I I I. All right. So, that will advance to the full council for consideration. Okay. Great. Thank you all.

Yep. Welcome. All right. Next up, we have ZAC 2025-23. This is a request to change the zone district boundaries from D3 to I1 in order to allow for heavy truck repair located at 3533 34th Court North.

Yes, sir. Um Kim Sparl, zoning administrator for the city. Um this is KZAC 2025-23. Um, as you mentioned, this is a request um for a zoning change from D3 single family to I1 light manufacturing. Um, this was an enforcement case. Um, just to let you know in the history um of the enforcement actions are in your packet. Um, it came to our attention over the summer um in July. That is when the property owner received the first um notice to get in touch with our team regarding the uses that are on the site. Um so the uses that um are on the site um include um a heavy truck repair. The parcel contains approximately 12 acres. Um the operations include but are not limited to interior cleaning, seat and electrical system repairs, maintenance of door and dashboard controls, tire changes, engine diagnostics, replacement of spark plug wires and injectors, valve lash adjustments, brake and drum replacements, servicing of fuel pumps, turbochargers, air compressors, clutches, and exhaust components. Um there is um a metal um accessory structure on site and the work um will be completed inside that structure. Um the operation will have two employees um including the owner and the proposed hours of operations are Monday to Friday 400 p.m. to 6:00 p p.m. Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and being closed on Sundays. Um the city's adopted long range land

use plan identifies this property as light industrial um because of the activities occurring on um heavy trucks. This is classified in our zoning ordinance as heavy truck repair which is why the resoning has to be to I1 and it cannot go to just a general commercial zoning. Um, if approved, um, the property owner would have to apply for all permits for the structure that was built on the site. There are no building permits for that structure. The property owner would also have to reservey the two lots into one um because we do not allow for structures to be built across lot lines. And also the property owner, if approved, would have to apply for a variant from the zoning board of adjustment for the chain link fence um for the height as well as for the materials. Um we currently do not allow a chain link fence in a front yard of any of our zoning districts. And we also do not allow a chain link fence adjacent or in residential districts in a front yard taller than 4 feet. Um, in addition, the gravel surface that is used on the site for driving the trucks in and off the property would have to be reviewed by the city storm water team and the city engineer. A type C landscape buffer would be required on all four sides of the property because it does abut single family on all sides. um any existing trees or shrubs that are on site could count towards that total required. The applicant would also have to apply for a soil erosion control permit to go alongside that building permit. Um this property is not located in a special flood hazard area. It is located within

the North Birmingham framework plan area. Um and it is located in the Collegeville neighborhood. Um so the applicant attended the Collegeville Neighborhood Association on September 8th, 2025 and they voted um to continue the meeting until a future date for additional information. So the applicant um did go back and meet with the neighborhood on October 6, 2025, and they voted 0 to 11 to not support the resoning request. The applicant then went to the zoning advisory committee on October 21st, 2025. And the zoning advisory committee voted um unanimously to not recommend approval of this resoning request. And that concludes the staff report.

Um I have one question um related to the information in our packet. So the request is to reszone to I1 from D3. Um and the future land use map uh identifies this area as light industrial. So, help me understand how we get to a future land use map and what what is that proposed zoning based on?

So, the existing zoning is single family. Um, and that's because um that area still has a few single family homes that are left. Um if you look at that um either the I guess it'd be easier to look first at the zoning map. You'll see everything in yellow is zone single family residential. [snorts] Um I believe when the framework plan was done for this area um it was identified the future land use as um light manufacturing because there were so many houses that were being demolished in this area and there were some residents that were leaving and so the thought was to continue the light industrial from Savage all the way down um in the future. Now, keep in mind the the future land use plan contemplates not just a few years, but it's going to contemplate the next 10 to 20 years. So, that doesn't necessarily mean the city envisioned this property now as light industrial, but that that could be something eventually down the road if all of the property owners were to leave this area and abandon the single family.

Yeah. But there are still some residents who live in this these two blocks, right? Um and there are occupied single family homes, right?

I'm just curious about that because, you know, given the residential history and the fact that this was platted out as a residential neighborhood, you know, it doesn't I mean it's not designed for light industrial is what I'm thinking, you know. So, um I understand the framework planning process and you know um gathering, you know, public input and trying to um envision the future. But, uh yeah, I was just curious to to know about that piece. I I would, you know, just make that point is that, you know, there's probably a hundred different property owners here. And, you know, going from a a D3 zoning designation to a I1 seems like inherently difficult, you know, in terms of doing that um making that transition. All right. So, is the applicant present? Yes, sir. Tell us your your name and um what's your

54 to 3. Okay. Um do we have any questions for Mr. Bureau? Mr. My questions would be uh around I know you presented to the uh neighborhood association. Uh could you tell us a little bit about what the feedback from the neighborhood was?

Uh they wasn't happy. You know, I guess Savage got a lot of trucks coming in out already and they just weren't happy with the heavy trucks. Worried about their health and you know, pretty much just their health and no heavy trucks. Thank you for that. So I hear that the the neighborhood and I see the votes uh 11 not in support I guess for the uh reasons you just mentioned. Uh I see also for the ZAC meeting uh four votes deny um either Kim, you know, do we know what the the reasoning for that uh for that was?

Yes, sir. I think that the um the committee felt like similar concerns that the neighborhood had that this would be I1 in the middle of a block of D3 and there are some residents within that block who actively live there. Um, and so they were concerned like the neighborhood was. And I know, um, as the applicant mentioned, there are existing concerns with the truck existing truck traffic going in and out of Savage.

Thank you, Kim. You know, my only thoughts here are that I I could certainly understand, you know, if the neighborhood has currently a lot of single family homes, why there would be some push back in terms of bringing um, you know, a business like into the neighborhood. Um, so just uh sort of wanted to say that out loud. Okay, Council Woods. Uh, yeah. I would ask just kind of I guess what would be your plan? Like where else would you uh I guess you're keeping 18 willers and stuff here. Is you just storing them? Is

Well, we just do light repairs there. We actually got a yard in Terren. So, we're just not, you know, it's it pretty much in and out. We're not there there. We're just there for repairs. Uh yeah, I would say like I kind of see uh what kind of Cam was referencing that, you know, it probably is got some level of shifting going on. I could see a future use of something else, but uh as of now as a residential, it's going to be hard to kind of spot zone industrial use in the middle of that.

Yeah. But um like I said, I saw I guess is some code enforcement or zoning enforcement stuff. Um Okay. Um, I feel for you. Um, you know, obviously you made a investment um in this property. You know, you're sounds like you're trying to run a business. Um, at the same time, you know, we have responsibility of um serving our our citizens. And this is, you know, an issue that um is a big deal for the the council. We hear from a lot of our constituents about um folks, you know, doing things where it's not allowed in the zoning. U it's a frequent topic of conversation in all of our offices. Um, so, um, I think that's kind of where it squarely lands. And, you know, uh, the one thing that I would suggest to you is is that it it may potentially make, you know, what's the likely outcome of this um, to be a little less painful. Is that Do you do any work with Savage? Uh, yes we do.

Okay. All right. So, um I don't know you know what who owns the parcels directly across the street from you directly across 34th uh 34th court north. Um, but there's some adjoining vacant parcels like direct directly across the street from you that um they are also zoned D3, but they're contiguous to light industrial. So, you know, if at some point in the future you were to acquire one of those pieces of property, it's more than likely that we would entertain, you know, a reszoning case because it's contiguous. this, you know, what what you're asking for is more of what we classify as a spot zoning where it's a use that doesn't, you know, fit with the surrounding properties.

You said directly across. Well, maybe not directly across, but you know, across 34th Court North. Well, that would be savage and they're using that as industrial right now. There's some some vacant there's several vacant lots uh down there at the end of 34th Court North where it turns and goes to 36th Street. Yeah, they got lumber all over there. They're using that. They got the same fence that I got. They got equipment over there. Okay. Yeah, it's being utilized as well.

Okay. That whole spot. Yeah. All the way to the end. The I'm, you know, looking at a satellite view, so it's not necessarily representative of what's going on there now. Um, but, um, that was just just the suggestion. So, in any case, are we have any further questions for Mr. Bureau? All right, we have a motion. Yes. Okay. Second.

All right. All in favor say I. I. So, uh, this will move forward to the full council with a re recommendation to not approve. Cool. Okay. Thanks, guys. Yep. All right. Uh, our next case. Uh, yes, ma'am. Miss Brown,

we regarding the case that we just heard. Yes. Uh, what you mentioned about Savage that is part Please state your name and address and make it quick, please.

All right, we'll do. My name is Anna Brown. I chair the North Birmingham framework committee and the spot that you were talking about there when you were talking about Savage, they have went and used that part. We have complained about them using that as part of their company, but they're saying because it's just they're just stacking wood and pallets and junk on there. That is right. Our argument is that if your company is an industrial company, anything that is you put on there that you include within your company line and it's residential, it is wrong. Yeah. So, you're saying

So, that's something we're trying to get straightened out on there. You're saying that there needs to be also court code enforcement action for those D3 residential zones, lots.

Yes. And as a matter of fact, we've been trying to coordinate a ride through in the Collegeville area because of just that problem right there with code enforcement so that we could get those trouble spots and have them zone correctly or straighten them out. And I talked to this young man um about that because you're right, it's spot zoning. But I told him there are other areas that have not been downzoned yet that still I want and if maybe we could find something and he could move it there. Right. But in that area right there we the plan is to leave that residential.

Okay. Okay. So I just wanted to add that part to the record that that was a problem with what Savage is doing because some of that is residential too. Okay.

Thank you so much. So, um, Miss King is help helping, uh, us manage the PNZ committee. If we could just make a note to contact U zoning to regarding that issue that she just brought up. Okay. So, we'll move on to the next case. Uh, this is ZAC 2025-28. This is a request to change the zone district boundaries from D2 to D4 in order to allow a communal living facility and this is located in the Spring Lake neighborhood. Mr. Burl.

Yes sir. This is ZAC 2025-28. Um, this is a request to reszone property from D2 single family to D4 for a communal living facility located at 813 Tarpon Drive Northeast. Um, the subject property consists of one parcel with one house and one accessory structure on a half of an acre located in the Spring Lake neighborhood. Um, all properties surrounding this parcel are zoned D2, single family. The applicant is requesting to reszone this parcel um to allow a communal living facility that will serve three senior residents and will have a full-time staff member providing 24-hour supervised care. um and offer a range of services including housekeeping, laundry, medication management, enrichment activities such as music therapy, Bible study, group engagement, as well as provision of daily meals. Uh transportation will also be provided for residents to and from medical appointments. and the proposed staffing plan will include four personnel consisting of care managers and an administrator. The city's adopted long range land use plan identifies this area as residential low. Um this use if approved, the resoning is approved by the city council would require a special exception for a communal living facility. Um, that means that if the reasonzoning is approved, the applicant would then have to go before the zoning board of adjustment and demonstrate that they meet the five conditions that are listed in your packet um for a communal living facility for a special exception.

Um, and the applicant is aware that that is one of the requirements. Um, there were no comments from the city's landscaping, stormwater staff, or department of transportation. This property is not located in a special flood hazard area. It is located within the Northeast Framework Plan area. The applicant attended the Spring Lake Neighborhood Association on October 6 and a vote was not taken at that meeting. Um so um the applicant went to the November 6 meeting of the neighborhood association and they voted um 0 to 17 to deny the request with one abstension and the zoning advisory committee met on November 18th, 2025 and they voted to not recommend this request to the city council for approval and that was one vote to approve and three votes. to deny. And that concludes the staff report.

Okay. Do we have any questions for staff before we hear from the applicant? Kim, uh, you know, my question, curious to know what the reasoning behind ZAC's uh, vote was. Yes, sir. Their concerns um were similar to the neighborhood. Um, this is a very wellestablished D2 existing neighborhood. Um, and their concerns were um, putting a communal living facility in the middle of an established neighborhood. Okay.

And I believe some of just to add, I think some of the concerns were also not just the folks that would be living there, but some of the services that we would be provided um, and the staff that would be there as well. Right. Is the applicant present? Miss Wheaten. Yes.

Hello. Hi.

Um, so tell us a little bit more about why about your request. Uh I see in the information that um your proposal is to have three residents. Um so that's strikes me as being a little unusual in terms of a um communal living facility. Um just give me more information. What more information about why is it three?

Well, just tell me about like um your business model I guess I mean is is are these individuals who you will be housing like a family or they would not be family. Okay. So you have a business model that can generate a profit off of three rep residents. Yes.

Okay. Um and why this particular property? Um, I actually was going to get a property to um do a communal living home and I bought the property before I came to zoning. So, that's what the whole problem is is that, right, I didn't know that the first step was to go to zoning. Yeah. Well, you're not alone. I've seen that happen more frequently than I would like. Um so, okay, that explains kind of what why we're here.

Yeah. And so when I came to um zoning and they told me that's first thing that they told me, right? You should have came to zoning before so we would could have told you. So he asked me that I want to go forward with it because of my investment. I told him yes and he told me, you know, I would have to pay the $1,000 and it was not refundable and I told him that I wanted to go forward with it. Okay. Um, Gotcha. And you So, you ran up against the zoning when you were trying to get a business license for the facility. Exactly.

Yep. Gotcha. All right. Uh, any question other questions for the applicant? All right, we have a motion. All right. Uh, second. All right, so the motion is to not recommend with a second and all in favor say I. I. I. So, um, this will move forward to the council with a recommendation that it not be approved. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Uh our next case is ZAC. Sorry. Yes, sir.

My name is Wley Short. I'm the president of Spring Lake. And I want to make a correction. I think she reads and said that the applicant attended the second meeting. She did not. She did not come back to the second meeting. So, I wanted to make that uh statement so you all can put that into the record. That's all I have. Thank Thank you for that correction.

All right. Um, next case is ZAC 2025-29. um request to amend the city's zoning ordinance to allow text changes to the D5 multifamily district mixeduse medium mixeduse. Yeah, mixeduse medium district and I4 landfill mining and timbering district and to add clarification to the existing sanitary landfill definition. Mr. Burl.

Yes sir. So, this is the AC 2025-29. Um, this con includes several text changes. So, we'll just kind of go through each one real quickly. Um, the first one is to adjust the height requirements in D5 in the duplex, townhouse, and multifamily uses um to 35 ft. Um that was a recommendation um and an ask made to us of the planning and zoning committee a couple months ago. Um and so we are proposing to reduce those heights from 45 and 60 to 35 ft. Um, [snorts] number two, um, we realized that in some of our framework plan resonings, we, um, propose using mixeduse medium in some areas where there are some single family homes that still exist. And our current zoning ordinance does not allow single family residential as a permitted use of mixeduse medium. Um, and we still kind of see mixed use medium as a transition area. Um, and so we would like to add single family or residential as a permitted use and mixed use medium. I don't know that we'll see anyone proposing to build new single family and mixeduse medium, but it will help us with any legal non-conforming issues um with some of our framework plan areas. Um the third um at the um planning commission meeting um when the eastern area plan was discussed there were concerns over the I4 mining landfall and timbering industrial district. In one part of our ordinance, in the description of districts, we state that

heavy industrial uses are allowed in I4, but in our permitted uses table, we have it as an a use that is not permitted. And so to clarify, we want to make sure that I4 um does allow for heavy industrial. It would be permitted with conditions. Um, and those conditions are in your packet. We also, um, had some concerns over just landfills in general, um, and the possibility of, um, quarry properties or other properties located in I4 once they are not utilized becoming landfills in the future. Um, and so we're kind of doing two things with the landfills. We're proposing to create two definitions instead of one. We would like to define a private sanitary landfill, which would be owned and operated by a private company. Um, and then a public sanitary landfill would be like the city's landfills that we own and operate or if the county owns and operates a landfill. Um, and then we also to satisfy some of the concerns of some of our residents would like to add that use instead of being just straight up permitted. Um, we would like to propose adding it um as a special exception use in I4. And that would mean that anyone who would like to change an abandoned quarry to one of these landfills, they would have to apply for a zoning board of adjustment case, which would require them to go to the neighborhood association for a recommendation. And that way, the neighborhood would be involved in the process, and they could weigh in on whether or not they would like to see

that property changed. and then it would go to the zoning board of adjustment for review and approval. Now, that's not to say we expect a slew of applications. We don't expect um anyone to apply for a special exception for a landfill um anytime soon, but we felt like that gives the neighborhood um a level of comfort moving forward knowing that they would be part of that review process. Um so these changes were presented to the planning commission at their regularly scheduled meeting on December 17, 2025. Um they voted um five in favor and four against with the following changes. Um number one, they voted to leave the current height requirements in D5 as existing. They voted to add single family detached residential as a special exception in mixed use medium instead of a permitted use as proposed and then they voted to support um the three remaining items as is.

Okay. So um my question is related to the first question that I have is related to the single family allowing single family detached in mixed use medium. So are you saying that there is currently single family residential single family detached residential in mixeduse medium zoned areas and that we're yes trying to create to correct a legal non-conforming situation.

That's correct. So some of those would be legal non-conforming. Um we also have had some um developers reach out to us who are interested in developing smaller cottage style single family detach developments in district zone mixeduse medium that don't necessarily meet the cottage subdivision requirements. they would just look c like a cottage and so single family detached would prohibit them from doing those developments as well. So it's kind of a a twofold. Um and and honestly um you know well there's really no reason you know I don't think that we shouldn't allow it in mixeduse medium. Um, mixed use medium is kind of it's kind of that buffer between some of our high density residential and then some of our more mixed use areas. Um, so planning staff did not have an issue with that proposed change. So tell me about the zoning advisory committee's recommendation to allow it as a special exception. So that would require that the current legal non-conforming um properties would have to apply for a special exception

only if their property um was substantially damaged or if they tore it down and wanted to rebuild. they would be right now they're legal non-conforming so they're okay. Um, but if anything were to happen, if there was a fire or they had significant damage that was over 50% of the value of the structure, the replacement cost of the structure, or if they wanted to tear down and build new, then they would have to go through ZBA for a special exception per the planning commission's recommendation.

Yeah. Well, okay. So, let me just share some thoughts. Uh, and we'll kind of go through these in order. Um, so one of the things that we're trying to do with uh our zoning is to to achieve more density. Um, and that's, you know, part of the motivation be behind mixed use in general. And um we're also tried to do that with the urban neighborhood designation um allowing more density there. So my concern is that um you know not necessarily for the existing single family that's in mixeduse medium um zones that are legal non-conforming. Um but for the second scenario which you mentioned where developers are trying trying to you know come in and achieve low density and what we intend to be higher density. So um actually you know this is my personal viewpoint that I can see some wisdom in the zoning advisory committee's re uh recommendation um for special exception uh you know that still would leave us with the legal nonconforming um situation. But, you know, that's kind of where we are. Um, are there any other questions related to that particular point?

Yeah, thanks counselor. I was going to ask uh Kim, just curious to see what your opinion is on the matter. I know PEP's recommendation initially was for the detached single family detached residential in an MUM district to be as permitted. Um, do you have a perspective on on, you know, the sort of suggested change to special exemption? So, I mean, obviously we hate to create legal non-conforming um uses and structures. Um, so permitted by right would eliminate those legal non-conforming.

Can I stop you there? So, they're currently legal non-conforming. Is that am I correct? There are some that are currently legal non-conforming and there are some that will be created in the framework plan resonings that are that are currently going through right now. Gotcha. All right.

Um and and when examining those, they're they're they're single family h the majority of these are single family houses that are in areas you want to see as future mixeduse districts. Um, so that's not to say that we don't support the single family homes remaining. Um, you know, if they were ever to be torn down or revitalize their areas where we could we would like to see more density as you said. So, um, I think the planning team would be satisfied permitted or with special exception. I think we would like an avenue at least with the special exception to give property owners who might be legal and non-conforming an avenue so they can become conforming with the ZBA process if that makes sense. So there's basically just one added uh element going to ZBA for the special exception versus it being automatically

right in the special exception before the zoning board of adjustment. You don't have to meet the six variant standards. You have to prove to the neighborhood and to the board that you will not tend to impair the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. And I don't think that would be extremely difficult. um if any of these property owners were to go through that process. Got it. Council Woods, uh any questions related to that particular issue?

Okay. All right. Uh so let's move on to the um next point um about heavy industrial and I4. Are there any questions related to that? Okay. All right. Next one is uh the private and public sanitary landfills um change to spec special exception use and I4 question about that. Uh well yeah kind of four and five go together somewhat in the way I'm going ask the question but

um So I see we're we're adding the definition separating public and private, but the requirements that they're basically held to are are the same are the same in a public condition and a private condition. Okay. Yes, sir. That's correct. These are these are currently I4. So we just want to move that to special exception. Uh do you know off the top of your head how many private uh landills? I can think of a few, but

I believe there are I don't know that we have any private unless they're accessory to a private use. Um the landfills that our staff's aware of are all operated by a local government um or county government.

Yeah. So the context I hear I think here is is that you mentioned the quaries that our quaries are currently privately owned and you know um you have to imagine that at some point in the future uh there's not going to be anything left to quarry. So what do you do with a big hole in the ground? Um and that was the concern from um the neighborhood. Yeah.

And you know, we we tried to make it clear and then so you guys understand, we have no applications for any of these and don't anticipate any in the near future. Um but we were trying to think ahead um to try and get ahead of one of these issues before it gets in front of us.

Yeah. So, I think um setting a special exception is good, but I think we probably need to look a little more um long term in terms of if for whatever reason a private entity didn't want to open one of these, like how do we uh protect like that's one of the things like if you, you know, go out of business and you've got all this sanitary trash in the ground. I just know how much it cost us to, you know, keep up with the EPA requirements and close sales and open sales and it's not something we can walk away from. But in the private sector, um, if it becomes no longer profitable, you get a situation where that could be left. So, I think this is probably good, but what else can we do in terms of, uh, uh, I think it's just establishing the requirements and, um, you know, maybe I don't know, some kind of bond or something, but uh, So that these particular uses also would have to go through a separate licensing process and come before the full city council um similar to our junkyards and scrapyards and solid waste facilities. Um so the city does have separate requirements through the business licensing process through the city clerk's office. Um, so the zoning board of adjustment would see it for the special exception and then it would go to city council for consideration of the license to operate subject to the the current city code requirements.

So, are there more requirements in the eight listed here? Yes, they're in the general city code. They're separate because their licensing requirements through the finance office um like we do the solid waste transfer facilities um the junkyards, the scrapyards, the liquor licenses. So those these are just specific to the use to the zoning portion of it. Um but there would be separate code requirements to consider for the license to operate. Thank you.

All right. Uh so I think the only other comment I would have is related to the first one which is amending the current height requirement in D5 district multif family to 35 ft. Um I see that the planning commission offered a different uh recommendation uh in favor of uh leaving it as is. Uh just for the record uh you know by I'm leaning towards PP's recommendation of 35 ft for Yeah. So, um, having heard this at a previous planning and zoning committee meeting, I I'm not sure that it got communicated to, um, the planning commission, you know, in the same way that we sort of discussed it, but um, just to provide context, um, you know, the PL planning and zoning committee's recommendation was to limit the heights to 35 ft. Um, and to also, uh, at some point in the future, um, create a additional zoning designation that would allow for existing structures that are over that height requirement. Um, so that, uh, at least we would have, you know, less time where there's legal non-conforming. um properties created by this height restriction. Um so I see we have our counselor ameritus Abbott uh with us. Um councelor Abbott, would you like to provide any additional comment context?

Oh yes. [snorts]

Good afternoon. My name is Valerie Abbott. I live at 15 Glen Iris Park on the south side where I have lived for the last 50 years and the first eight years of my life. You can guess about the rest of the years, but I'm here to speak on in favor of limiting the D5 zone district to 35 ft. And the reason is we have scads of D5 zoned properties on in all of our historic neighborhoods. Not out in the suburbs so much, but in the old neighborhoods and they have been limited to 35 ft and therefore they at least blend in with the single family homes that are one story and twostory. Having a 65- foot building pled next to your onestory house is pretty devastating. Uh it even blocks the sun from your tomatoes growing in the summertime. So um it it's it's vital to these neighborhoods that already have been hit by D5. I guess it's vital to make sure that we don't get more of the 65 foot buildings than we already have. And we have one that used to be next to a two-story house. Uh the church that owned the house demolished it when they heard we were talking about historic districts. Uh so it's gone. But it was a striking juxtoposition of this gigantic building next to a two-story house. And you thought, who would want to live there? Clearly, nobody did after they bulldozed

it. But it's it would be significant for anyone who lived next to a D5 property and didn't want to be shaded out in the morning or the afternoon. So, I just wanted to put a plug in for keeping the 35 foot change rather than changing it back or leaving it the way it is. So, thank you for indulging me. I This is the first time I've been back up here since I retired. We've missed you. [laughter]

Oh, I know. I know that the grammar is suffering while I'm missing, [laughter] but uh I doubt anybody really misses that. especially the people on staff who do it a lot. But anyway, it's good to see y'all and it's good to hear that the zoning advisory I mean the zoning planning and zoning committee is doing well. See, I've already forgotten your name. So, yeah. Anyway, it's good to see you. Good to see you.

Thank you. All right, gentlemen. Um motion. I'll make a motion to u approve the proposed zoning ordinances per p or p's uh what's the best way to say this recommendations from all so the the fir the under the synopsis you're um recommending approval of the five that um were originally presented to planning commission. Okay.

Right. And uh you know, I think what we're saying is is that we acknowledge um the planning commission's recommendation. Um however, we're uh not going in that direction. uh that we're uh the motion I believe is to um recommend to the full council the code changes or the language changes that were recommended by staff. Okay. All right. So, we got that motion a second. Um all in favor say I. I.

All right. All right. So that's done with and now we move on to our framework plan reszoning cases. So ZAC 2025-15 the eastern area framework plan reszoning. Who's presenting? It's me. All right.

Okay. Um so the eastern area um we had discussed multiple properties I think were discussed at the December meeting but those have been um changed to just the three that you have on the handout before you. Um there's three photographs and I can very quickly go over those three changes. Um the first one um this is the Kennedy School property. It is recommended, the school itself is recommended to go to C2 and the property behind it was recommended to go to D3. And so we just need we would like to continue the C2 um behind that property. We've been made aware of a potential project um for that site. Um and it it made more sense for it to be C2. there's no single family anywhere around that site. Um and then the school bus property across the street is actually zone light manufacturing. Um so it made sense to us to continue the C2 um at that particular site. Um and then numbers two and three are actually um adjacent to each other. Um number two, this property was reszoned um in 20 14 or 15. Um I don't know if you guys remember the old function art um metal galvanizing art studio. Um they reszone this property to QM1. Um and we try to continue the Q conditions to properties. So um and for you know we made a mistake and identified it on the map as urban neighborhood which would mean that the

uses there would would be legal non-conforming and so we would like to continue that from QM1 to QI1. Um so it's consistent with what the city council approved about nine years ago with that resoning case. And then number three is the area immediately to the right of that property. These properties are all currently zoned B2, so they should be going to C2. Um, however, we change them to mixed use low on the original map that you saw last month. And so we would like to make that change from B2 to C2, what the current zoning is. And those are the only three changes um for eastern area. Everything else will remain the same.

Okay. Um just one comment on the first one. Um the K Kennedy school property definitely does not um need to be zoned D3, but I would caution anyone, you know, um relative to that those properties that that is a frequently flooded area. It is a special flood hazard area. Yes, sir. Yeah. So, um, you know, regardless of the zoning, um, I'm glad that you guys are aware of that because, uh, I think that's probably the reason why all of the residential has kind of gone away. Yeah.

Um, on the second case, uh, so It's currently it's currently QM1

and that was approved by the city council about nine years ago. Um and the art shop um has since moved out, but there is a um I believe it's a a high-end car dealership and repair shop that is there now. Um and so they are permitted the Q conditions for that case allowed everything in B2 and then the custom fabrication of architectural materials which was the function art studio that was there before. Um, so going to urban neighborhood would create legal non-conforming and it would not be consistent with our practice of keeping Q conditions that the council has previously adopted. [snorts] Um, so we wanted to try and correct that if we could.

Okay. So you're changing the recommendation is to go forward with QI1,

right? And the only uses allowed would be those two conditions approved by city council, which would be B2, which is what it was previously zoned, or the custom fabrication of architectural material and interior furnishing, sign, sculptures, furniture, and similar materials, which would be the the art shop In the previous resoning cases that we've done for North Birmingham, Northeast, Tittisville, and Southwest, we've tried to maintain the Q conditions for properties. Um because we felt like the council, they applied individually as property owners. They went through the resoning process. The council heard their case and they approved their case with those conditions. Um, so that's why we've been trying to keep the Q conditions consistent

um, as we go through the framework plan resonings. Why not just uh, do B2? I mean, it we could do B2. That would kind of contradict ourselves with keeping the Q conditions. Um, but if that's the pleasure of the committee, we're happy. It would be C2. We would be happy to do that as well.

Well, I mean, I think I as I understood from our previous conversation, you guys were trying to clean up some properties that had cube conditions on them that were no longer relevant. And in this case, the, you know, custom fabrication of architectural material, you know, that's not happening at this property currently. What's currently happening is auto repair and sales. So what I'm suggesting is, you know, just C2. Yeah. Zone it what it's being used as.

Yeah. Yeah. Does that present a problem? I don't think so. And that, you know, the properties adjacent to it were requesting to keep those C2 as well. So they would all be consistent along that strip. Okay. All right. So that would be my recommendation there. Um and then the the third one is also going from B to C2. So we'd be all consistent there. Correct.

Got it. All right. Um so anything else related to that's it for eastern area and then this one will be ready to um we'll get the maps updated and then we will be able to submit um for a city council public hearing.

Okay. So, um, I'll make the motion to forward the Eastern area framework plan reszoning to the full council with a recommendation for approval. Reszone uh noting that uh rather than reszoning 4814 and 4816 Fth Avenue South to QI1 um that we would recommend the reszoning to C2.

All right. All in favor say I. I. Um so that goes forward. And our next up on our agenda is um update on the appointments to the Birmingham Historical Commission. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I'm Hannah Garmin. I serve as the historic preservation manager for the city of Birmingham. I hope you're doing well today. Happy New Year. Um because um the planning uh this committee is has in our historic preservation ordinance a exeicio member and it states the chair or their represented appointee shall serve as a member of the BHC, the Birmingham Historical Commission as a full voting member. So, we are here today asking which member should be appointed to serve on our committee.

Okay. Um, you're asking for names. Well, it's the chair or their representative Winnie since you're co-chairs. I guess you both could serve if you wanted to. Um, councelor member uh, Abbott of course served in her capacity um, when she was chair. Okay. All right. Now I get it. Um, so you're asking which one of us is going to be on the Birmingham's Historical Commission. Which one of you get the opportunity to spend time with us in PEP? Are you volunteering? Council Woods. [laughter]

Um, got it. So, tell us more about how frequently the historical commission meets. Um,

you meet quarterly. Um, if you we haven't met in the last quarter because we have not had a quorum. We are um short members, but we're working on that. Once one of you are appointed and start serving, we'll be back up to our um uh the quota to have a um to have um a full body. We also have put forward um five uh recommendations to the mayor because they are recommended by the mayor and then appointed by city council. Um so we are short some members. The Birmingham Historical Commission oversees our historic [clears throat] preservation um movement in Birmingham. They're there to guide um through historic preservation month and other activities that we have. They also are where the appeals go. So if you um are doing design review and it is denied, your appeal starts with the Birmingham Historical Commission who then hears that appeal. So they meet on an asneeded basis for that. But in the past three years as I've served, we've not had an appeal. So that's something that's very rare. So usually you just meet quarterly. You help set the agenda for the preservation movement in Birmingham. And we're also looking at updating our ordinance. Um it was written in 1992 and updated in 2000. So it's in need of an update. So we're working through that now. So that's going to be kind of the next big thing for the year.

Interesting. Well, we could always appoint our committee member who's not here. You could. [laughter] All in favor? You really drove the straw that day. Yeah. Um I'm I'm fine serving if you want to be proxy and All right. You're volunteering. All right. So, the committee makes a motion to effect of appointing uh councelor Vasa to the Birmingham Historical Commission. All in favor say I. I. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. All right. Do we have a motion to adjurnn?

Second. All in favor say I. I.