Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We've got two minutes.

Yeah, according to this, now it's 5.59. One minute. All right.

You guys should have this discussion on the record.

We'll survive.

Okay, we'll call to order the July 2026 meeting of the Home and Planning Commission if we could please start with a roll call Mr. Goodwin. All right.

Mr. Sims.

Here.

Mr. Stamps.

Here.

Mr. Underwood. Here. Mr. Respinto.

Here.

Mr. Harwell. Ms. Wilcott?

Here.

Mr. Henninger? Ms. Childs?

And Mr. Roberts? Here. All right, so Mr. Goodwin distributed the minutes from the June meeting, I think last week or earlier this week. I had a chance to look at them. I thought they looked good, and if I'd entertain a motion to approve the minutes without a formal reading. motion to dispense of the reading of the minutes and approve second okay any opposed okay the minutes are approved um no

I was not at the meeting, so I would prefer I go down as abstaining from approval.

You may. According to Robert's Rules of Order, that's a point that's come up in the past. According to Robert's Rules, you don't necessarily, even though you were not in attendance, you can vote on the minutes if you choose to.

But if you... You're okay.

All right. Thank you. But I checked on that one time, and they say it's okay.

Okay, we have no old business this evening. New business is the only case we have tonight is case TX260701. It's a request to review and recommend approval of an amendment to the zoning ordinance definition for minor vehicle repair. I understand Mr. Goodwin, you're here to present for the city and summarize this on our behalf.

Yes, I'll give a very brief overview of the purpose of tonight's action. As you noted, the purpose of this meeting, this particular case then, is to review and recommend to the city council amendment to the city zoning ordinance specifically the definition section as it relates to minor vehicle pairs currently there are snow definition for this particular use in the zoning code all of this you may remember at the Planning Commission's January 6 meeting The Commission approved a recommendation that minor vehicle repair be removed from the list of permitted uses in the GERD or Green Springs Urban Renewal District. This action was taken in response to concerns that were expressed by the City Council following the Approval of the development plan for the Valvoline instant-oil facility back in October of 2025 the Planning Commission Reviewed that plan and make a recommendation to the City Council the City Council ultimately even though they made a couple of minor conditions to it they approved that redevelopment plan but following the because that was again that minor vehicle repair was is a permitted use in the GERD so the City Council did take action with conditions they approved it but they expressed concern that this that those types of facilities that more vehicle focus uses were not consistent with the council's vision of what Green Springs corridor should look like. They envisioned it more of a pedestrian-oriented boulevard and so that their concern was that additional such uses were not going to be consistent with that vision. So they expressed that concern and the Planning Commission, as I said, in January considered a recommendation to remove it from this from these zoning ordinance that that particular use in the interim the city attorney was working with the city to to prepare a definition of the various type of uses that might be allowed under a minor vehicle Repair definition and that is what you have in front of you tonight for your consideration It's it's rather long, but it's varying and inclusive of a lot of different potential uses and when the when the Planning Commission um made their recommendation to remove that use from gerd they encouraged the city attorney to develop a definition because there was not a good one for that they they recommended that the consideration be given to adopt in the definition that existed under the West Homewood district before auto and motor vehicle but the city attorney did not feel that that was broad enough to cover all of the various uses so so that's why we have what we have tonight from him this this somewhat more expansive definition than what was originally recommended by the Planning Commission and so Anyway, so that's that's that's where we're are tonight is to consider this recommendation and make a This consider this definition and make a recommendation to the City Council for their Review and adoption so that that's but it all goes back to what I've said with this type of use in GERD and it's removed from the from the Classification but the need to attach some sort of definition since there's not one in the current zoning ordinance. I think that's pretty well.

Thank you, Mr. Goodwin. This is a public hearing. If anyone here from the public would like to come forward and speak on this case, this is your opportunity. And while you're walking up, if you could please state your name and address, but also write your name and address on the pad on the dais. Sure, thank you.

Also, just a note before we begin discussion, just be sure to speak directly into the mic just so everyone can hear and we can get it on the recording for those at home.

Sure thing. Ravi Patel, 616 Bristol Lane. And so, look guys, I'm in support of removing minor vehicle repair from GURD. I'm in support of you know, removing, you know, substantively what would be a mechanic shop or oil change or something like that from the GURD, right? When I read the definition, I felt like it was a little too broad for what you have in modern days, right? So, for example, you have a ceramic coating, right? You could have a business come that does everything indoors that is a ceramic coating. It's a one-person shop. This is a high, low volume, high dollar business. that does not devalue the area. It's a good business. It's for local community. It's a local operator. I think the idea here is you're trying to remove low-value, high-volume. You're trying to get low-volume, high-value businesses there. You have small businesses opening up. You have opportunities for small businesses. to that extent it's a little broad uh... not just ceramic coating businesses like think about you see the vinyl wraps on cars there you know that's a broader segment of of vinyl wraps in general right like you have a graphic design printing businesses so what i would what i would ask is if we're going to make it this broad uh... and open to that interpretation because those are vehicle adjacent right and the way i read it this is broad enough to possibly include those unintentionally or if it's intentional you know let's let's be clear that it's intentionally being pushed out But if it's not, then at the same time we're adding this, we have some sort of mechanism to allow for those types of businesses within the GURD that promote local businesses for local users, right, of those businesses and patrons of those businesses. Yeah, that's my two cents.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Patel. Is there anyone else in the public who wishes to speak on this case? Okay. All right, seeing no one, we'll close the public portion and take questions and comments from the Commission.

Mr. Chairman, This definition and the same sizes properly worded and if it were a sort of a standalone action It makes a lot of sense to me, but we have to recognize this approving this definition or having the council approve it is a step in in the process that is going to lead to some number of businesses becoming nonconforming. And I don't think the city has really adequately studied the impact on the nonconforming businesses. I don't know if there's been any communication. But you have to realize, when you take an existing business and make it nonconforming, without talking to that business ahead of time then you're really limiting their future property rights for existing businesses and i have some issue with that and for that reason again because it's a step in the process i'll be voting no uh when it when it gets to the vote so thank you mr chairman

Right just for clarification. You're correct it if Not so much this definition now. I mean the definition itself is just Explaining what uses are we included under that under that category of that use? What you're speaking to if the City Council goes forward to remove this particular use from GERD like that was their intent then Facility such as Valvoline oil would Be considered technically non-conforming it could continue to operate as it is right now the oh, so you're not taking away that ability to conduct business so so again the distinction between non-conforming use that might result from the City Council actual moving that use from GERD as opposed to this definition which is seeking to just describe the various uses that may fall under that particular use so so just to know that the issue before the Planning Commission tonight is to whether to recommend this definition to the City Council for adoption

that the issue of nonconforming that's something perhaps the city council may wants to look look at but but the two two different issues i understand that okay and i think we have some businesses that have been in the whole world for a long time we're tying their hands which are potentially which are part of what they can do in the future for the benefit of who knows who down the road and i think if we had a process And part of why I'm saying this is to encourage his counsel to engage with his business owners who have been home launching for him and have a conversation. Maybe they don't have a problem with it, but this is a step in the process and that's the reason that I'm not comfortable with taking this step at this time.

Yeah. Well, as I said, Mr. Sims is present with us tonight. I'm sure he's hearing what you're saying and may convey that to the council with regard to that future action if they were to do that. But, yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Well, I mean, the way I understood it was Just for an example, let's use Omega Tire. Been there forever, right? Pretty much pillar of the community. As long as that business, if they wanted to retire and they maintained their business license current, they could sell their business as a tire store or would that automatically just go away? Because if that's the case, you're basically taking

35 years of work and throw it in the garbage if you can't sell your business so there has to be some kind of safe the Precautions and safety nets there for business owners my understanding might be my understanding is that Again, we're getting off the course of the definition but in response to your question if the City Council were to remove that particular use from would take the example GERD somewhere something like valvoline oil that's currently operating though that use goes away so therefore becomes technically non-conforming they can continue to operate their business as it currently exists but when it becomes non-conforming they will cannot expand the footprint of their building or nor can they expand different uses like like what you're saying uh maybe or like express oil i think we've used that case in the past they're they're an oil change facility but then suddenly tire engineers wants to become part of express oil and now you want to start selling tires that would be an expansion of a use that would not be allowed if it were non-conforming use but to to your point they could continue to operate as a non-conforming use indefinitely because that that doesn't go away that's not being taken away from them if however they were to fail and they decide to sell their business or their property another similar type of use could come in and operate that or and and it would even though it's still non-conform as long as they maintain the same type of activities that were currently being done by valvoline oil okay that's what if they if they if valvoline although did not if they failed and and a new business did not come in uh after six months then that goes away and then then a similar company couldn't come in and utilize that site for that that type of activity that that's my understanding

Fred, I want to clarify. Sorry, so the existing business can continue to operate and it can be sold to another owner, but if they leave and it's abandoned for six months, they couldn't resume business. But if they leave the closed shop, a new business couldn't come in with a non-conforming use. They would need to sell the existing business and they would need to continue the operation. or resume within that six month period. At least that's how the zoning ordinance reads right now.

Makes sense.

And also one more point to Mr. Patel's point.

And as I said before, I mean, there's, I mean, window tinting's not on here. Auto wrapping is not on here. These would be all businesses that would potentially need bays to park cars inside. So, I mean, we either gotta cover everything and not leave any loopholes, or, I mean, if we're defining all these little things from brakes to battery testing to, I mean.

But this, yeah, this is a permissive list, right? So if your goal is to, I'll back up to just to the title of the phrase that's being defined as minor vehicle repair, and I think most of the rest of the definition is keyed off of those three words, but one of them being repair. I think what you're talking about is decorative.

It also has installation of audio and video and navigation, so that's not a repair. That's true. That's a retail service.

That is true.

It's ambiguous, and it's confusing.

you know, like, cars are changing. You know, they're going to have cameras all the time in the car now, so you're going to have those minor things that require high, like, highly technical, specialized technicians, and you're going to have local entrepreneurs who are going to come and say, hey, I can make $150,000 a year servicing, and it's not a, you know, it's not a, Come up to the mic, please. Yeah.

I don't know.

You know, like, it fits that area is what I'm trying to say. So, you know, it's a little broad. All I'm saying is it's a little broad, and if we're going to make it where, you know, he's saying we're specifically listing out certain businesses, then either we exclude them or probably the better bet is to add a definition to say these are not or these are allowed in the GURD and have an expansive list that way at the same time. That's all I meant.

Right, no, and I think obviously the issue going before the city council, it's not before the city council yet, but we've already made a recommendation on as to whether to remove minor vehicle repair from GERD. So if that passes, there's still four other areas in Homewood where zoning classifications in Homewood that allow minor vehicle repair. We have to have a definition for it. And I guess the question is, is this inclusive enough? I think we could make this 10 pages long if we wanted to. Yeah, I was about to say. At some point.

Zoning owners cannot include every possible.

That's why I said it's included. You guys are misunderstanding me. That's what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying include those things into the minor vehicle repair. I'm saying exclude them, because they're not really repair. They're a different type of business. You're not repairing the vehicle when you wrap it. So you have Kingfisher Graphics. You have different things like that. People go in there. They spend hours there figuring out their graphics with their graphic designer. So those are uses that we want to include in the GURD that are High dollar, low volume. You see what I'm saying? Instead of, you know, hey, you know, basically a repair shop that's a fast food place where anyone, you know, it's not localized. And that's what I'm trying to point out. We're trying to localize and create a community aspect to the GURD. That's my understanding. That's what you're enabling. It's like, okay, I'm going to come, I live here in Homewood, I live here in Vestavia, I live here locally, and I'm going to drop off my car here, I'm going to walk up the street, and I'm going to participate in all these other businesses we have in GURD, generate tax dollars for the city, keep those tax dollars in the city, come back and get that retail service car back, and then take it over. Like, for example, a ceramic coating. You may not know what a ceramic coating is, but say, for example, someone has a high-end car like a Porsche or a Lamborghini or something like that. They come in, they get a ceramic coating on their car, and that essentially makes it so that they're not going to be waxing their car for the next five or six years. It protects the paint, it protects the originality of the car, and that's a high-dollar business that you're bringing into the GORD and kind of helping change change the area. And I just don't want us to exclude that with this broad of a definition is what I'm trying to say. Does that make sense?

The zoning administrator Oftentimes they say you can't include every potential use if a use comes up the zoning administrator can make a decision as to whether that is or is not something that would reasonably included in that definition and then and that decision It could be appealed but but but that's one of his functions is to interpret The zoning ordinance and also in this case potential uses, you know, it's it's not included But is that reasonable that should be included? broadly it would fit into this category or not, you know, so I Understand what you're saying.

I'm trying to hit it. I'm trying to get it get us ahead of that and and them having to make that decision. And so that's really, I was reading the agenda, and I was like, we're trying to make it easier for the zoning to kind of make those judgment calls, and that's why I kind of showed up here tonight. Sorry.

Thank you.

Appreciate your input.

If there are no other questions or comments, I would entertain a motion to approve this case for a vote.

Just as a note, if The board can also make a recommendation to remove or add things if, you know, if after this conversation you feel like it might need to be narrowed down. You can also make a recommendation. Ultimately, council would choose to accept your recommendation, I guess, or not. But if that is maybe something on your minds that could be added to your motion. Also, if you may have questions that you would like for the city staff to bring to the city attorney, you can choose to continue the case to next month to allow us time to reach out to the city attorney about potentially altering this definition. Again, that's up to you guys, but that's another option.

And I would, if there are no further questions, I would entertain a motion to vote on this case.

I have a question for the fellow commission members. Just related to some of the discussion and comments related to the broadness of the definition currently, are there certain I guess, phrases within the definition which go beyond the scope of what you originally intended or what you think should be intended in minor vehicle repair. You know, obviously there was a conversation at the prior meeting about this topic. So in this definition, what what language do you think goes beyond, I guess, the intent that you had, you know, two months ago when we had this discussion? Like one that jumps out at me, installation of audio, video, navigation, alarm, or communication equipment. Like that's a phrase where it's not something I was thinking about per se when we were talking about this definition. Are there phrases in general that people feel like make it too broad or is it the, or does it need to be broader? I'm trying to figure out where some of the questions are.

In my view, just reading the definition, there's one there's one phrase that is basically the definition. Everything else is elaborative. Minor vehicle repair uses are characterized by routine, customary and relatively low impact services that do not materially alter the fundamental structure, frame, drive, crate, drive, train configuration, or primary performance characteristics of a vehicle. That is the definition. The rest of it is such uses, it's all examples, right? Such uses include but are not limited to. And then a laundry list of things that we could add 500 similar things if we wanted to but i think i think the focus of this is to say this is not major repair we're not talking about auto body shops we're not talking about engine replacements we're talking about minor vehicle repair customer routine low impact and we you know again i said in the pre-meeting this is the longest definition probably in the um in the zoning book if it's approved and yeah i'm of the mind that we accept it as is we get rid of all the examples or we spend a long, long time trying to figure out every possible use. I think the third option is not tenable. I mean, I think if there is a use that we are, that's glaring, that we wanna make sure is included in this, again, from a permissive standpoint because the, zoning book says in certain certain certain classifications you can perform minor vehicle repair what is that we need to have a definition so that that's my thought in general is is i don't want to get you know let perfection get in the way of something that's that's that's already good uh if we can get something in place but if If we came up with 10 more and we came back next month, I think someone else would think of something else.

As you point out, it's include but are not limited to. So there's room for the city council, if they wanted to, to include additional activities under this. So it's just to give them, as I said, the original plan Planning Commission's recommendation, because there was not a definition back in January, was that consideration be given to given some sort of definition. And I don't think the Planning Commission was prepared at that moment to go into this level of detail. They just said, as part of our recommendation to remove it, we think you should, you, city attorney, city council, should add a definition that would that would describe exactly what uses are underneath this use and so the planning commission for lack of anything else said similar to the definition auto or motor vehicle services as defined in the west homewood so they were just Plan commissioners throwing that out to the City Council and to the city attorney to say here's something something like this And so city attorney has come back with a little broader Because and because it was so different from the since this definition auto and motor vehicle different was so different from what the Planning Commission recommended that's why the city attorney felt it was appropriate to send this back to the Planning Commission so they could look at this broader definition because it was a substantive change from what was originally sort of recommended so that's why it's back here before the Planning Commission was to let the Planning Commission look at this and see if that's more in line now with what they were thinking when they made that recommendation to the to the City Council so But this does not preclude the city council from changing this, deleting things, or adding to it. It's just a recommendation, again, to the city council.

If there's not further discussion, I would motion to approve the definition using the language as Chair referenced, striking the portion of the language starting with the such uses include. So really you're just talking about the meat of the definition of the activity and not including the examples.

I would second that.

Sway it's just on an individual basis as they come up Okay, so my understanding again as the chairman read the the main thrust of the definition as he and then at that point forward such uses include

to not include those in your recommendation to the council.

And that was seconded by Mr. Rosmenta. Is that understood? Okay. All right. We'll vote on that.

And I mean, at this point, too, with a motion and a second, we can modify that if the commission wants further discussion.

But yes, that is the motion. I second that. Okay.

The motion has been made and seconded and we'll now vote on that All right, I'll start with you mr. Sims Mr. Respento, yes, mr. Underwood Miss Wilcox Mr. Stamps, yes and mr. Rob

yes so um the definition as as uh modified by mr sims's um proffer uh has passed by a five to one vote okay okay moving along any communications this evening from staff

yes i have some communication we have um some more comp plan meetings coming up the 22nd through the 24th um there is as all as has been in the past uh evening meetings on the first day and then two days of open studio sessions they'll be i think having some first drafts for us to kind of react to at these meetings I'll send a reminder out via email, and there's also information on our website and the Comprehensive Plan website. So please come and tell your neighbors and your friends and your fellow business owners and everyone you can think of to come and get their input.

Thank you. Now, I will echo your sentiments as well. Unfortunately, I'm going to be out of state, so I won't be able to attend, but everyone else should. Anyway, thank you. No further communications from staff. We will adjourn the meeting. Thank you.