Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Yes, sir Yeah, the first case that we have for consideration tonight is a conditional use case that was carried over from last month This is for a to church located on Green Hill Parkway off of the 280 corridor eastern side of town and The current zoning of the property is C2. They did submit revised plans for the church area of the total overall site. It's actually the property shares use with a greenhouse and a nursery. So a little bit of a different scenario situation here. there was a conditional use previously granted to allow the church to locate in the former office building of the nursery, which is located towards the front of the property. And so given that there is a conditional use on record for that, establishing the church use on the site, we viewed this particular case as a modification to the layout of the church portion of the site. And so we really restricted our view, our review of the case to that portion of the site taken up by the church. So they are expanding, adding on to the existing building to Page Left, which is actually going to be the southeast side of the building. some additional space, climate controlled. And with that, it triggered the need for a revised conditional use site plan and some other improvements to the overall site, particularly in the parking area to the rear of the building, which they have supplied to us. So considering the revised plans that were sent over to us, Staff is in a position where we can make a recommendation for approval We do have a couple of conditions that we're asking for the Commission to consider one would that would be that Photometrics are included as part of the lighting plan with the permit set Lighting locations were identified on the plan but we'll need photometrics before we can issue a permit and So first condition that photometrics would be included as part of the lighting plan with the permit set. Second condition that the site is developed in substantial conformity to the conditional use plan. And thirdly that the church obtains a revised certificate of occupancy upon completion of construction. I will note that at the time of permitting we will be looking for the appropriate MS4 stormwater waiver form. that that will need to be provided to demonstrate compliance with the city's MS4 requirements. Be glad to take any questions that you guys have on this particular case.

Mr. Chair, photometrics is a new word to me. What does that mean?

That is the actual measurement of light or projected measurement of light in conjunction with the site lighting. So you may have seen in some plans that have come before you small numbers, measurements plotted out across the site and they're usually higher the closer you get to the lighting posts or the lighting fixtures. And really that's in order for us to go to the zoning ordinance and ensure that the lighting that is being proposed for the site does not bleed over into adjacent properties in a fashion that's going to be a nuisance.

Don't feel rained on. I didn't know what it was either. I think it's a brand new word.

It's a good one. Thank you for the explanation.

Any other questions? All right. Next case is a subdivision case.

All right, SO62612 is a re-survey of lot I165B of Ross Bridge. The property is zoned PR1 and the lot is located in Ross Bridge, phase three, it's parcel one. It's 1798 Glascott Trail. The purpose of the plot is to revise two storm sewer easements. One storm sewer easement revision proposes a reduction in width of the easement due to a retaining wall that was constructed in the storm sewer easement. The other storm sewer easement proposes revision due to the storm sewer easement not aligning with the physical location of the storm sewer pipe. Staff recommends a continuance due to one of the storm sewer easements needing to be revised. The width needs to be revised to allow room to maintain the storm sewer.

We talked about it with him.

We have. We've had a back and forth with the contractor who's serving as the applicant. He is aware of our concerns. and sent in a revised as-built survey this afternoon, but as of right now, that revised as-built does not show adequate evidence easement in place for the pipe that is existing on the site. The portion of the easement that they are looking to vacate with this plat really comes in two segments. One runs along the existing pipe page down from the residence that's under construction on the site. The existing easement centers on the pipe but includes a concrete wall that had to be constructed in order to put the homeowner's desired driveway and garage connection on that side of the home. So we ended up with a case where on that segment of the easement, the concrete wall is located within the easement. And then further towards page right, the existing easement takes a turn from the pipe at the manhole and continues in a fashion that goes across a proposed swimming pool That is on the subject site. The pipe was actually installed by a previous contractor outside of the easement that was platted for it. So we have a couple of things here that the current contractor is trying to clean up. as it relates to this site, um, that his predecessor put into place. And so the, um, the new proposed portion of the storm easement on that back portion of the property would center on the pipe that is in existence and is installed today. Uh, it would propose this plat would propose to eliminate and vacate that portion that goes into the pool where there is no pipe. Um, but the issue that we still have with the instrument that has been submitted is in dealing with the first segment of the pipe closest to the cul-de-sac where the pipe appears to be a foot or less from the edge of the easement and the manhole actually appears to go outside of the easement as proposed.

It's a 24-inch pipe, and so actually the outside wall of the pipe is outside of this revised easement. And so a portion of the manhole is as well.

But in short, we have communicated that with the applicant.

I'm a little bit confused, because it looks like to me, based on their property line, they still have room to move their easement over closer to the property line. Is that not correct? Why didn't they put it on the property line rather than where they put it?

I think they're trying to avoid having the concrete wall within the easement itself, but there is still, at least for a substantial portion of the pipe, additional room between what is showing up as the concrete wall and the pipe on the as-built survey. Now, there may be some footers, for the concrete wall that extend a little closer to the storm pipe. So we would like to have the additional time to work with the contractor to figure out where exactly that easement boundary needs to be. As of right now, we've had communication with the applicant late last week into today, and they've not requested a continuance as of yet.

Did you tell them that you were going to recommend the continuance?

Yes, sir.

Are they going to be here? Doesn't look like it.

It's the work session.

I know, but I don't see them here. Okay.

They might be here.

They might show up. Okay. Any questions?

Mack, just one question. On the form, they state that their reasoning or purpose is due to an improper recording of the storm sewer easement. That doesn't seem consistent with the narrative.

I disagree with that to a certain extent. When the subdivision was designed, and I actually believe we have the engineer that designed the subdivision present, the storm pipe was meant to follow the routing of the current easement. As is platted.

It did when it was as built. Somebody moved it and replaced the concrete pipe with plastic pipe.

So this is plastic pipe now?

I think it is.

So the contractor for the individual lot, the initial contractor, did a number of things that were not in keeping with the original design.

Previous contractor or the current?

Previous. The current contractor, QS Construction, was brought on board to fix a lot of those issues and try to get the property as close to compliance as it could.

What's the city feel about a plastic pipe?

We don't like a plastic pipe. I was not aware it was a plastic pipe.

It's outside. I mean, it's currently... It's in a, I guess, is that a public easement or a private easement? It's outside the right-of-way. I don't know. But it was revised.

I would like to know that detail as well Our understanding is that Jefferson County did eventually sign off on that crossing I believe we have some communication to that effect but But yes, the contractor that initiated the project strayed from the design.

Okay. Let's move on. It sounds like to me they got problems. We need to look at it a little bit.

All right, SO62613, Everly Parkway, North Connection. This is Zane PUD. This is located at the north end of Everly Parkway, extending from Overcut Trail to the intersection of Glascott Point at Orchard Avenue. The purpose of the plot is to plot a public road right-of-way. Staff recommends approval contingent on the following conditions. Relocate the gate to the northern end of the parkway. Install a hammerhead turnaround or equivalent on the south side of the gate. mill and resurface the intersection of Orchard Avenue and Glascott Point to the project limit where the curb ties in on Orchard Avenue. At the time of permitting, submit the MS4 form for the EnviroHood devices that are proposed, and the EnviroHood devices shall require annual inspections by the property owner or the appropriate HOA. Lengthen any private drainage easements that do not include the riprap proposed downstream of pipes.

Okay. Anybody have any questions on this?

Yes, Mr. Chair. I've gotten some community questions about this one. So I just want to make sure that my understanding of this is the same as your understanding of this. It's a public road, but it's going to be gated, and it will not be opened for public use unless or until the school system elects to develop a track for a school in the Everly subdivision. Is that right?

That is correct.

Except for the city. The city has access through it, correct? Yes.

city has access through the gate. So that is correct. That's directly from the Everly plan unit development adopted by the city. The gate is in place to restrict through traffic for the general public, uh, but will be designed to accommodate city services through the gate. Uh, the right of way and the gate, uh, will be, uh, offered to the city, uh, as public and, the city council will have a, um, an ordinance coming down the pike to accept maintenance of those facilities as you generally would for a public street. And the gate is set to remain closed to the general public unless and until the Hoover City Schools determines to utilize property that is reserved for them in the Everly PUD. And that 40 or so acres is directly to top of the page and to the left of the proposed right-of-way.

Okay. Any questions? Okay, let's move on.

S062614, Everly Phase 4C, Resurvey Number One. This is zone PUD PR1. The property's located on Terra Street in Everly. The purpose of the plot is to reconfigure interior lot lines between lots 5715, 5716, and 5717. Staff recommends approval.

Any questions on this one?

S0615 Riverwalk Phase 1B. This is zoned PUD and located at 250 Riverchase Parkway East. The purpose of the plot is to create 21 residential lots, one multifamily lot, and one common area lot. Staff recommends approval contingent on the developer providing a surety in the amount of $95,000.00.

Any questions? Okay, one more.

S062616 Everly Resurvey Phase 1D with Stone Pod located at Everly Parkway in Revo Crescent. The purpose of the plot was to reconfigure the interior lot lines between lots 5861 and 5817 and reconfigure the rear lot line for lots 5851 to 5857 And create easements on lots 5801 to 5808, 5814 to 5819, and 5835 to 5849. Staff recommends approval. Any comments on this, guys? Okay. Mike, you're the last one. S062617, the preserve re-survey zone PR1, located on, sorry, this case is continued, okay.

All right, and the last case that we have on the agenda this evening is a conditional use case. This is for 1713 Montgomery Highway and that is suite 109. This request comes to you from Aaron Hodges, requesting conditional use approval to operate Opelux. a paramedical tattoo practice located in a booth within the salon space at the address above. And of course this is in the shopping center directly across from the Riverchase Galleria. So Ollie's Bargain Outlet is the bigger box located to the east. And you also have second and Charles and some of the other stores to the north. Um, so this particular business, uh, seeks to locate in a stall within an existing salon, multi stall salon, uh, in the shopping center, the zoning of the property is C2. And, um, again, as, as it was described to us in the application, they are simply looking to um, perform paramedical tattooing, which as defined in the application would consist of replicating natural skin tones and features. So if you have instances where somebody has scarring, maybe a birth defect or surgery and the like, this particular tattooing practice would focus in on, again, replicating skin tones or features to help mask or cover up those particular defects. And so with that being the guardrails in place that the business is describing as placing upon themselves, staff recommends approval contingent on the following. That one, the business is only engaged in paramedical tattooing, replicating natural skin tones and features as provided in the application packet. Two, that a certificate of occupancy and business license are obtained by the applicant prior to conducting business. And thirdly, that this conditional use is not transferable to another business owner. And in this particular case, you do not have anything in the way of fixed assets being placed on the site, really determining the future use of the site. You simply have an individual that is practicing this particular art at this particular location, no fixed assets. We would prefer that the conditional use not be transferable to another business owner that if another business owner comes in and attempts to buy her out, we have an opportunity to go through this exercise once again, just so the new business owner is aware of the conditions and the type of business that we are in this phase approving. And of course, if the business were to look for another location, that conditional use is not transferable from location to location. In practice, that has not been the case with any conditional use that we have granted, that that's transferable to different locations.

Okay, any questions?

Mack, what is the state permitting authority on this? Does it fall under a medical jurisdiction, ADPH? Just trying to figure out what other supplemental regs may be applicable from the administrative code.

I believe we are looking at the same as cosmetics or any other tattooing. Their state licensing is in line with those practices.

and so is a inspection of the site required by the state prior to commencing business?

I could not answer that at this time. We can ask the applicant, perhaps.

Thank you.

I think it's time to start. At this time, I'd like to call the January, I mean, June 1st, 2026, Hoover Planning and Zoning Meeting to order and ask Secretary Calleroy.

Ms. Peace? Here. Ms. Driver? Here. Mr. Munger? Here. Mr. Patel? Here. Mr. Reed? Mr. Underwood? Here. Mr. Wiesman? Ms. White? Mr. Wood?

Here. I'd like to ask Mr. Underwood if he would lead us in invocation, please. Sure.

Let's bow our heads. Father God, we just start. Just want to take a moment, Lord, and just thank you for this opportunity that we can come and meet together like this. And, Lord, we just pray that as we do city business here, Lord, that we'll ask for you to provide wisdom for us, Lord. I pray for our city leadership, for the citizens of our city, Lord, and that you'll just do great things here in our city and bless us, Lord. Again, we just thank you that we know that you're watching over us. And we do say this in your name. Amen.

Amen. Ms. Peace, will you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please? Prior to this meeting, each one of the commissioners were given minutes to the May 4th meeting. If there are no changes in that, I'll entertain a motion to accept as they're written.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to accept the minutes as presented.

Motion to have a second. Second. Motion to have a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. Motion carries. We've got two cases tonight that have been continued to the July 6th meeting. The first one is the Affinity Hospital on Valleydale Road, the Freestanding Emergency Department. And the second one is the Preserve Resurvey, a resurvey of lots 510, 11, 536, 37, 618, 619, and 620. Those will be continued to the next month, which will be on July the 6th at the same time. No new notices will go out, so if you have an interest in these cases, they will be heard on July the 6th at six o'clock. Any questions to what I've just said? Okay, first case tonight is case C052610, A2 Church, 6 Greenhill Parkway, condition use approval for the addition of an existing church building

located at 6 Greenhill Parkway and I think staff's got some comments to make yes sir this particular location was previously granted a conditional use for a church and a nursery to share the overall site the church is looking to add on to the existing building on the campus where the church currently resides so the emphasis on With this application and our review on the improvements to the church sector of the property, we reviewed the revised drawings that were submitted in relation to the church and staff comes to you with a recommendation to approve the conditional use request contingent on the following. One, that photometrics are included as part of the lighting plan with the permit set Secondly, the site is developed in substantial conformity with the conditional use plan. And third, the church obtains a revised certificate of occupancy upon completion of construction. The comprehensive plan calls for institutional and commercial development in the vicinity. The C2 zone of which this is located requires conditional use approval for alterations of this nature. And we also note that at time of permitting, the appropriate MS4 stormwater documentation will need to be provided as part of the permit application.

Okay. Any questions on this case? I'll entertain a motion.

I recommend approval. With the contingencies as they were noted.

Okay. Motion to have a second.

I'll second that motion, Mr. Chairman.

Motion to second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. Motion carries. We have several subdivision cases tonight. Typically we'll read them in a block, but we've got some questions about them, so we're going to take them one at a time tonight. First case is S062512, a re-survey of lot 165C on Ross Bridge. Purpose of this plat is to vacate and dedicate a sewer easement. Staff recommends the applicant continue. Proposed sewer easement needs to be adjusted to provide an adequate space to maintain an existing pipe. Anyone here represent in this case? Come down and give us your name and address We got some problems with this case.

Good afternoon. Oh, good evening, y'all. I'm sorry. Susie Sturdivant. This is my attorney, Joan Singleton.

Can I give, we need a name and address, please.

The address is 4318 Glasscott Crossing. That's it?

No.

Okay.

Your address.

My address? My current address? 1409 Smithfield Forest Circle.

Okay. City's got some issues with this and several issues with this. I think it's got the fact that it's got a plastic pipe You know, I think you're probably aware of that and it's we don't have enough room because we got a wall in the way and So they think we need to continue this case so that y'all can work out some of these problems and maybe figure it out I Take you to chairperson, sir. Yes

The current understanding I have of the situation is that Mr. Smith, the contractor whose building on that lot has encroached upon Ms. Sturdivant's property, and this is not the first time, he's also caused her to incur cleanup fees

Are you referring to this this piece of property or you have the property next door?

Yes, we have the one the 4318 glass Scott crossing Which has been read there.

I believe the property that they are representing is page left of This particular site. It's not the property of with the concrete retaining wall adjacent to it, but the one next door neighbor.

So let me tell you what we're here to talk about tonight. We're here to talk about whether this proposal is acceptable to the city. And I understand if they've encroached on your property, that's a different issue than we're here to look at tonight. We're here to look at whether this property, this pipe, is adequate, does it meet the city's specs, and that sort of thing. And we, at this point in time, don't like what we see. So we're probably going to continue this case until they can work out whatever problems they have with that pipe. But as far as it being over the property line, that's not what we're here to determine tonight.

Well, the point I'm trying to get across is that this particular builder has ignored many of the rules of Ross Bridge. I think you're probably correct.

And I don't think I think this is something that goes to a court rather than our planning commission.

There's also an issue. Do we have anybody here from licenses? I'm sorry. Licenses. Building permits and that kind of thing.

Well, we have a. No, he's not here tonight, but. Yes, he does have to have a contractor's license to work in the city of Hoover, whether he has that. That's, again, not under our jurisdiction. That is something that the building inspection should do.

The reason I asked about that is because he has had a contract with Ms. Sturtevant, and... which should have been completed by now. But the last I understood, he'd never paid the building permit fees. So that's why I was going to talk to that gentleman if he were here. Okay.

What I'm trying to explain to you is... No, I get your point. You only want to talk about... I'm not trying to push you off. I'm just saying that didn't come under this board. We're here to determine whether that pipe is in the right location or not, not whether he's a licensed contractor, which if he's not, then I think you take that up with inspection services.

Well, he's licensed, he just hasn't paid you, and she's paid him, that's one of the problems.

Mr. Chair, between the Chief of Operations and myself, we can hopefully provide some clarity on that point. but it will be tomorrow at the earliest.

Thank you. We'll get there. Should I go over there and get some information?

Get their phone numbers. That fellow right back there in that blue shirt. Oh, the blue shirt. Get his phone number and he'll be glad to work with you on your problems.

Yeah, I'd just like to get some understanding. So is your decision to decide whether or not the sewer can or cannot be there? Because I don't really want it there.

Well, we're here to decide if it's appropriate for this particular lot if that sewer meets our specifications.

Okay, because I won't have a place to put the swimming pool. The sewer goes there. But there's a vacant lot in the back.

Mr. Chairman, I'm having a difficult time understanding sort of the orientation of this lot relevant It may behoove us to get the engineering commentary again so that we can triangulate proximity of this lot or if staff could switch us over to an aerial view just so I can understand a little bit better. We went through some of these things, ma'am, in the work session before, but we're already seeing some issues with the proposed vacation of the easement that's being presented to us. but your concerns specifically are new to us. So I think they're gonna go to that on GIS now.

All right, so the staff concerns is that the storm sewer easement, one of them, the revision provides, excuse me, proposes a reduction in the width due to a retaining wall that was constructed in this existing storm sewer easement. So on this, This is care if we get back to the. To the yes, please. So there's an existing easement, the first one, which is closest to the inlet on the cul-de-sac. That easement is proposed to be revised because there was a concrete wall that was built in the existing drainage easement. And so what has been proposed is not wide enough in staff's opinion to maintain the pipe. So we're gonna get back with this surveyor to discuss them revising the easement. The other segment which is close to what's shown there is an existing swimming pool. There is a pipe there, a storm sewer pipe, which was not constructed in the easement, in the storm sewer easement. the existing storm sewer easement runs underneath the swimming pool. The existing pool on this drawing, the pipe is, that was where the easement is shown on the plat, but in actuality, the storm sewer goes out at the angle there on S2. And so this easement is wide enough for this storm sewer. So based on those two things, we are recommending a continuance so that we can speak with the surveyor. And also, based on comments from our work session, we would like to confirm what type of pipe the pipe at an angle is.

Just for some additional orientation for the board, the property in question that we are looking at, 1798 Glasscott Trail. This is oriented a little differently than the as-built drawing that you saw. I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, for our guests at the podium. I believe they are representing the property at 1790. Correct. To the southeast of the subject tract. The storm drainage pipe that we are referring to and the easement that we are considering for vacation and establishing anew runs along the property line at the end of the cul-de-sac between 1798 and 1799. So that is the specific side of the property that we are looking at for the storm sewer easement and the pipe, not the side of the home that is directly next to 1790.

You understand?

I do. I don't. The little green dots up there, is that where the sewer is supposed to go? This is where your house is.

The pipe is going up there. You see? Yes, sir. It doesn't even affect your house.

But he keeps putting stuff over there. That's why we just drove by. That's why we thought that there was some interaction there.

No, it's shown on your next door neighbor's lot. It's not on your lot. Based on what you're saying. Do I have a motion to continue this case?

Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to continue it.

Motion to have a second.

Second.

Motion to have a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. Motion carries. This continues to next month, which will be July the 6th. Next case is S062613, Everly Parkway Northern Connection. Preliminary map approved for the Everly Parkway North Connection. Purpose of this plan is to create a right-of-way. Staff's got some comments on this case, too.

Staff recommends approval contingent on the following conditions relocate the gate to the northern end of the parkway Install a hammerhead turnaround or equivalent on the south side of the gate mill and resurface the intersection of Orchard Avenue and class cut point to the project limit where the end of the curb tie-in is at the time of permitting submit the ms4 form for the environment devices that are proposed and The EnviroHood devices shall require annual inspections by the property owner or appropriate HOA, lengthen any private drainage easements that do not include the riprap proposed downstream of the pipe.

Mr. Chair, as we did in the work session, could we ask the staff to comment on the purpose of the road and the gating?

Mr. Martin, will you?

Yes, sir. I can do that. So going back to the Ross Bridge plan unit development, the master plan for that development contemplates a continuation of Orchard Avenue past the Glasgow sector of Ross Bridge and into neighboring property to the south for future development. Fast forward to 2021 when the Everly plan unit development was approved, that was taken into account, that connection with Orchard Avenue and the Ross Bridge master plan development. However, when we were contemplating staff and city council, as well as planning commission, adoption of the Everly Plan Unit development, there was a considerable amount of feedback from the Ross Bridge residents concerning the nature of having this public roadway open to the general public and what that means as far as traffic for Ross Bridge. So as a compromise, the city council approved the Everly planned unit development with this connection, this road being connected between Ross Bridge and Everly, conditioned on there being a gate put into place to restrict general access from the public. The gate will be programmed to allow city services through there, but it will not be open for the general public. That is unless and until the Hoover City Schools elects to utilize property that was reserved for their use in the Everly planned unit development. Should you have a Hoover City Schools facility develop on the site, the gate at that time would be open to general traffic. The thought process there being a facility operated by the schools to the benefit of residents, not just in Everly, but in Ross Bridge and other portions of the west side of Hoover. So, This particular preliminary platen construction set abides by those conditions that were laid out in the Everly plan unit development and a continuation of Orchard Avenue as contemplated in the Ross Bridge master plan. We believe staff with the conditions that we are recommending for approval of this preliminary platen We handle some house cleaning items as far as proper location of the gate, the ability for anybody from the Everly side who has gone past the signage, notifying them of the gate to be able to turn around once they arrive at said gate, along with some other housekeeping requirements as it relates to the permit set.

Thank you. Any other questions? Anybody in the audience? I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, I know we communicated the conditions to the engineer for the project. I do believe the engineer representing this case is here.

I'm sorry?

We're good with the conditions.

Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion to approve the application as presented with the restrictions voiced by the City Planner Incorporated.

Okay. I have a motion to have a second.

Second.

I have a motion to second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion carries. The next case tonight is S062614, Everly Phase 4C, Resurvey Number 1, Everly Phase 4C, Resurvey Number 1. The purpose of this plat is to reconfigure interior lot lines between lots 5715, 5716, and 5717. Staff recommends approval. Who's here to represent in this case?

Bob Easley.

Mr. Easley. Any questions from the Planning Commission? Anybody in the audience? I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve.

I have a second.

Second.

Motion and second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed nay. Motion carries. Next case is S0626, 15 Riverwalk Phase 1B. Final map approved for the Riverwalk Phase 1B located at 250 Riverchase Parkway East. The purpose of this plan is to create 21 residential lots, one multifamily lot, and one common area lot. Staff comments that recommend approval contingent on the following. Submitting a final MILR, signed MILR, and developer provides surety for an amount of $95,000. Who's here to represent in this case?

Bob Easley.

Mr. Easley, are you okay with the $95,000 surety? Okay, any questions on this case? Anybody in the audience? I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve case S0626-15 with staff comments.

Okay, motion to have a second. Second. Motion second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Last subdivision case we have tonight is S062616, Everly Resurvey Phase 1D. The final amount approved for the Everly Phase 1D Resurvey number one. Purpose of this plat is to create, reconfigure interior lot lines between lots 5816s and 5817. Reconfigure lot lines on lots 5851 through 5857. and create easements on lots 5801 through 5808 and 5814 through 5819, 5835 through 5849. Staff recommends approval. Who's representing this case?

Bob Easley.

Mr. Easley. Any questions from the Planning Commission? Anybody in the audience? I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, motion to approve S-0626-16.

Motion to have a second.

Second.

Motion to second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. Motion carries. Good luck, team. Last case tonight is CO62612. That's at 1713 Montgomery Highway, Suite 109. It's a paramedical tattoo practice. And staff has got some comments they want to make on this one.

Yes, sir. As noted in the work session, this location is in our C2 community commercial district. It's part of the shopping center directly across Highway 31 from the Galleria campus. This particular business is looking to occupy a singular booth in an existing salon studio that has multiple booths associated with it. The nature of this business is to engage in paramedical tattooing, replicating natural skin tones and features in events where an applicant has surgery, scarring, that sort of thing, to help mask those features and provide a more natural tone. So in reviewing the case, staff recommends approval of this application contingent on the following. First, that the business is only engaged in paramedical tattooing, replicating natural skin tones and features as provided in the application packet. Secondly, a certificate of occupancy and a business license are obtained by the applicant prior to conducting business. And thirdly, that the conditional use is not transferable to another business owner.

Okay, any questions from Planning Commission? Anybody in the audience? I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, I move to approve case C-0626-12. Subject to the comments and restrictions recommended by staff. Second.

Motion to second. We don't need to make any special motion about them if they sell to go to somebody else. Do you think that covers what you've got? Do we need to make it in our motion?

I would consider it already included in the motion that's made.

We have a motion to second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed nay. Motion carries. We're adjourned.