Planning & Zoning Committee - Regular Meeting

March 24th. We'll call this meeting to order. First item of business is to consider the minutes of the Wednesday, February 24th, 2026 meeting.

All in favor say I. minutes are approved. Our next item of business is the data center ordinance. This is case ZAC 2026 dash 0000001. request to amend the city's zoning ordinance to establish definitions and development standards for data centers including accessory data centers, micro data centers, medium data centers, and hypers scale data centers and to establish regulations for associated infrastructure including fiber huts and related utility facilities. All right, staff.

Good afternoon. My name is Kim Spur. I serve as the city zoning administrator in the department of planning, engineering, and permits. Good afternoon. My name is Hunter Garrison. I serve as the deputy director of the mayor's office of resilience and sustainability. And I know some of you have seen the presentation. We kind of modified it just a little bit. Um, but we still wanted to include some items. So Hunter will kind of give an intro and then I'll go over the text changes. Great.

So thank you. And as Kim said, uh you guys have seen quite a bit of this presentation before, but just in case you haven't seen components of it, I'm going to go over it fairly quickly, but we can, you know, if you have questions, please feel free to jump in. So uh background, uh we're doing this or the city is leading this effort due to the explosive growth of data centers across the United States. uh previous examples of data centers have typically been much smaller in scale particularly in terms of energy usage noise and other impacts on the community. So it was time for us to look at create definitions and develop these ordinance modifications around data centers. So this is our tenative timeline. We're still on track with this. Today is our March 24th committee hearing. uh if it moves through this committee uh the council will set a public hearing on March 31st and then the public hearing will be April 28th. So what's a data center? It's a catchall term for buildings infrastructure that house computer services. They typically operate for 24 hours a day, require specialized power and cooling and water systems and often resemble warehouses or even office spaces but function very differently. And you know this picture here kind of does a good job of illustrating the difference. So this enterprise scale data center is very similar to the existing DC blocks data center in Titusville. Uh below is a hypers scale data center in Newton County, Georgia. So you can just see that the difference and this is kind of what triggered this uh ordinance modification effort and that we realized that both of these things aren't the same. So we need to create these definitions and protections for our residents. So as I said, existing data centers have been considerably smaller in scale. Uh

all our local examples thus far we believe have been 5 megawws or less. Uh however emerging data centers are often between 200 and 1,200 megawws. So as that energy demand increases so do the surrounding impacts on the community both from a you know grid infrastructure water usage as well as noise. So again this this trend has been growing nationally. There's been quite a bit of controversy around this, but we're hopeful that with these recommended changes, this will kind of create a set of guard rails that protects our community and sort of eases a lot of that tension and ensures that where they are placed, it's compatible with surrounding land uses. So, we uh we did do a bit of public engagement. There were four meetings with identified stakeholders both from more environmental facing groups as well as our business community uh and existing data centers within the city. Uh the feedback led to some updates on our draft. We modified our initial proposed setback requirements uh water system requirements and the elimination of some loopholes that we inadvertently created with the first draft. We incorporated feedback from both groups uh fairly equally and we added some lighting conditions. So the Birmingham planning commission met on March 18th and recommended approval with one update. So hypers scale data centers uh would be if passed as is permitted by special exception in I1 and MXDC3 whereas the initial proposed draft had those as PC or permitted with conditions and then uh so there's do you want to

I'm going to hand this off to our zoning administrator Kim Sparl and she'll kind of walk through these next slides. So, real quick, um I know counselors Quinn and Bosa, y'all have seen this draft several times. Um I know councelor Woods, you might not have had an opportunity to see it. Um but in our text changes, we are proposing um new use definitions for accessory data centers, medium, hypers scale, and micro. And then we are also introducing a definition for a fiber hut. And then we have some related definitions that go along with those data center uses. Um and then also in your your packet you will see that we broke down each proposed new use and we have identified the zoning districts in which they would be allowed as a permitted use. A permitted with conditions use meaning they have to meet all the conditions listed prior to any permits would be issued. permitted as accessory which would mean that it would not be the principal use on the piece of property. It would be accessory to a principal use and then permitted by special exception and that means that the use would be allowed only after review and approval by the city zoning board of adjustment. And the zone zoning board of adjustment process does include um a recommendation from the local neighborhood association. So that would provide community feedback. Um so we have each use defined and then we identify the zoning districts where they would be permitted and we also identify the conditions that would be associated with each use. Um as Hunter said at planning commission um everything in your packet was recommended for approval um with one

amendment and we did reflect that amendment in your packet. Um we did have I1 and MXD use group C3 in hypers scale um as permitted with conditions and the planning commission recommended that those only be allowed by special exception um for hypers scale data centers um and so um what what we did as staff we did amend the draft but we also had a follow-up conversation and we thought we wanted to to to have this conversation with the committee. Not all hypers scale data centers are built the same. I think by some of the photographs that that Hunter went over in the presentation, there's some hypers scales that are on the smaller side like your DC blocks and then you're going to have some of your larger hypers scales that could be over a 100 megawatts. And so just a thought that we had after the planning commission meeting was possibly splitting the hypers scales. If they're 100 megawws or less, they could possibly be permitted with conditions in I1. If they're over 100 megawws, then maybe that's the threshold to send them to a special exception. So that we were just trying to come up with some different scenarios where we don't necessarily treat them all the same um when they do have the different size um and power capabilities. So we just wanted to bring that um to y'all's attention. Um, and then we also discussed, if you recall, we do have a spacing requirement from um, the BRT line in the hypers scale conditions, and it's currently at one

quarter mile, which is 1,320 ft. Um, and in order to make that distance a little bit easier for us to measure, we discussed perhaps just making it an even 1,00 ft. that might be easier um for us in our enforcement and in measuring. We still think it would be important to keep a distance requirement from the BRT, but we did hear from some of our stakeholders that during the construction phase and even during um the operational phase that some of the employees will use the BRT and currently do at DC blocks to access their jobs. And so we don't want to make it prohibitive that we encourage driving to their job. So we thought the 10,00 foot separation might be more in line with something um that would be amanable to the committee. So those are just two items for you guys to consider um if you would like to discuss those. Um and then if you have any questions about any of the other conditions that we've discussed, all the other conditions remain the same um from the planning commission meeting.

Um question. So in relationship to DC blocks, they they have applied for the permitting for their expansion already. Is that correct? That's correct. For their the current project. Yes. Okay. So if these um zoning changes and the requirements are u adopted, what I'm asking is is their project they're developing right now and have permitting for going to be subject to the the changes.

It would not um they would be considered what we would call legal non-conforming. However, any expansion or additions would have to go through and follow these requirements. Um, which could possibly mean a special exception through zoning board of adjustment and then for the spacing uh for the BRT line, possibly a variance for that spacing requirement. Okay. Yeah. And it is our understanding that there is other property in the area that they own that there could be future expansion.

Yeah. One of the things that u representative from DC blocks brought up in the planning commission meeting was that the I believe it was the 500 foot residential setback um is going to be an issue for them in terms of their planned future development. is um I mean I know you guys reduced that from a th00and to 500 and it wasn't clear to me whether or not that had resolved their issue um or if that was still going to be an issue with them. I I I think based on the proximity of their it kind of depends on where they actually propose to put their new facility because the way we have it worded, you measure from the equipment or the building to the residential property. I know the 500 will help them. I'm not sure if that will resolve completely that issue without seeing a site plan and being able to measure that distance. I'll just add on to that one briefly. I like Kim, I wasn't 100% sure if that did address their issue. I I know it did help a little bit. I will say that I think the 500 is is probably a still pretty solid place to land because of the noise and then you do you know I think if if any other hypers scale was coming in and we we don't know how big their footprint is going to be that 500 is a pretty good level of protection for residential because the decibel output will increase um almost linearly with their energy consumption. Um So, I think the 500's a good place where if it if they can't fit

it in there, it's a case for a special exception. Um, in my conversations with Mr. Armstead at DC blocks, he did say that the current BRT buffer is actually the more challenging issue for their future development plans.

So, could we bring back up the slide of the proposed um additional changes? So you guys are proposing a hypers scale light for I1. So permitted with conditions in I1 instead of special exception. Um expound on what permitted with conditions actually means. So in in your packet um hypers scale is at the end and there are 19 conditions. So whether it's a special exception or permitted with conditions all hypers scale facilities would have to meet all 19 of these conditions. The only difference is that if it's we're proposing for consideration um and for discussion purposes if it's less than 100 megawws instead of going to the zoning board of adjustment perhaps we just allow it with the 19 conditions and if it's over 100 megawatts then it would trigger the ZBA requirement.

To add to what Kim was saying the reason 100 megawatts was chosen as that threshold was. In doing some research, we found that 100 megawatts is like it's still more impactful than a the medium scale at the 30. However, once they get beyond 100, that's typically when the data center has to have two buildings. um the the buildout becomes significantly larger and that is also when you start seeing uh more required on-site utility infrastructure where whether that's switching stations or substations. So, you know, there's from 30 to 100 there's different we'd want to see them meet those hypers scale conditions. However, 100 to the higher um megawatt energy usages, especially when you get, you know, up to, you know, 300, 500, a thousand, whatever, it it becomes more significant and that's where that special exception seems more warranted.

Council, you had a question.

Yes, thanks. Um, do you have could you explain a little bit? I know uh the brand planning commission meeting last week that they added back in a request for permitted by special exceptions for the I1 and I'm curious as to what uh some of the reasoning was from the planning commission side. It's a large body with a lot of members that have put this request in. I think it was just a desire for an an extra level of oversight, another regulatory process. It it would present an opportunity for public input essentially because that ZBA case would be a public hearing. the public could come out versus, you know, if it's PC permitted by condition, as long as they meet all those conditions and in the correct zoning category, they're they're permitted to do that development without that process. Thanks for that. I will say that I have some hesitation with uh the removing light manufacturing for special exemptions under under the 100 megawatt if that's what the planning commission.

Yeah. So well let me ask this first. So all of these conditions are applicable to all hypers scale facilities even if they're in I2 or I3. Is that correct? That is correct. Regardless of whether it's permitted with conditions or a special exception, all conditions will apply for every hypers scale data center in the city.

Okay. So you know in reference to to potentially allowing the hypers scale in I1 by um permitted with conditions. I'm looking at a zoning map of the city and there's light industrial across large swaths of the city including, you know, big portions of the city center and um, you know, some on the south side and um,

and the majority of those will hopefully be changed next week. in the north side southside resoning plan. Okay.

Well, we did significantly through the framework plan resonings, we have significantly downzoned heavy industrial properties to I1 to general commercial or to mixed use districts where we could. Well, forgive me for not having the north, south, southside framework uh reszoning memorized. Um I know you guys got a a a map of that upstairs, so that might be helpful for us to to see. But um and I will say on the the I1 we do have a minimum lot size requirement of 5 acres for hypers scale. So some of the smaller footprint I1 just wouldn't be viable unless they went through a subdivision type process.

Okay.

But councelor Quinn, you are correct. There are still properties that are light industrial now that will be reszoned to I1 light manufacturing. There's not as many because we've tried, especially around the city center and in the southside areas, we've tried to utilize those properties and downzone them to general commercial or mixed use in order to avoid creating more legal non-conforming uses. So, if there's an active light manufacturing use on those sites, we've tried to keep them. Um, we don't want to increase legal non-conforming across the city. I know y'all know we've had this conversation many times before. Um, so we have taken the opportunities to downzone when we can, but there will be some properties um in North Side and Southside that will remain light manufacturing. Okay. So just to to be clear, you know, one of the issues with uh all of these data centers um but especially Hypers Scale is um the power generation and the Um, so the ordinance says that there's no on-site power generation allowed period ex except for if you know by some chance they could do solar if they could make solar work for them. They could do solar power generation onsite,

right? And the solar like we we know at the the scale of solar that you would need to power a data center in totality would be immense. You would need hundreds of acres. So any solar on a data center, we're very aware that that would be supplemental or charging backup batteries to offset peak power demand hours. However, you know, realistically to get even a handful of megawws out of a five acre site on rooftop, it's going to be a challenge, right? Okay.

We did receive comment on that from um DC blocks. Uh it's it's it's an emerging area with with data centers. Um you see you kind of in the worst case scenarios Memphis where you have on-site natural gas turbines burning around the clock uh reducing air quality around that neighborhood. Um there's other instances where there's emerging technology like fuel cells that are you know no emissions um and other like even natural gas that has a very low emissions factor. But I think that's a good case where ZBA comes in and they go through that process present like here's what we'd like to do for this on-site power generation and here's how impactful it would be. I think that's why that protection exists.

Got it. And I would add to councelor O'Quinn, I think um since this is an emerging use across the country, as newer technology becomes available in the next few years, our staff will try to keep a breast of all the changes and you know in a year or two we may be back before you guys with amendments to the conditions. Um but that's something that we'll definitely try to be more proactive about. um is the emerging technologies especially as it relates to power generation. Okay.

Yeah. Council Boston.

Yeah. Thank you, chair. Um first of all, uh it I do want to applaud the effort PEP. I know y'all have met with several stakeholders uh through this process and had conversations um uh with with appropriate parties. So, just do appreciate the work that y'all have done. Um and again, uh I know the planning commission had a very healthy conversation last week. Um I I still keep coming back to that same concern. Let's say there's a 90 megawatt uh which is still under the 100 megawatt um threshold for a permit by special exception. Um to include that as PC uh permitted with conditions is concerning uh for me 90 watt megawatts very large. Um in my understanding the the minimum threshold for a hybrid scale would be 30 megawws. So 90 would be three times that. For that reason, I would I would recommend that we move uh light manufacturing back to um special exception um for for any

Yeah. message. Um just you asked earlier about the rationale for the planning commission making that recommendation and you know um one of the reasons that I recall uh that recommendation being made was um having the special exception um for those zone districts um gives the opportunity for stakeholders surrounding those parcels um to be notified and and um you know of course we're that's a big issue right now with one of the data centers that's being um constructed is you know folks it felt like they found out after the fact. Um so uh keeping that in there, you know, would you know honor the planning commission's desire to give um surrounding stakeholders the opportunity to at least be notified.

And just for clarification, the draft is the planning commission approved draft. We haven't changed anything. Okay. Yeah. Got it. Council Woods got anything? Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, a couple things. Uh, so one, I'll start with the bus uh buffer. Could you go back and explain just the logic behind the buffer requirement associated with the bus stop?

So, it was specifically for the BRT. And the reason we initially put that in there was that, you know, the BRT is where we want to see increased density across the city in terms of of both housing and jobs. We know that that large footprint data centers aren't very job intensive for the amount of land area they take up. So if we're trying to encourage density specifically along that BRT route and increase its usage, we felt that the data centers were maybe not contributing positively towards that. Although, you know, in doing our stakeholder research, we found that, you know, security guards at uh DC blocks do use the BRT to get to and from work. So, you know, it's up to this body if you want to keep that in there. Um yeah, it just kind of stood out as I didn't understand uh what it was accomplishing. Um because what did you end up at? 150 ft, 125 ft.

It's so it's currently at a quarter mile. One alternative that we kind of gave you for consideration was to just reduce it to a more straightforward 1,000. Um ultimately, you know, ask the council, you can determine what you want that buffer to be. Our typical city block is 500 ft. Is that right? Four to 500.

Okay. Okay. Um I I kind of want to circle back on in terms of the categories when you're talking about hypers scale. Uh 30 to 100 seems like a large uh category. Could you talk a little bit more about why it's necessary or why why we wouldn't have a category that splits that in some form of fashion? So I we landed on that just based on the professional best practices that existing today reviewing um ordinances across the country that have created definitions for data centers. It's it's often been 30 megawws where that cutoff is and it goes into hypers scale and we haven't found many instances if any where it it further breaks up hypers scale. That was one reason we put that optional, you know, alteration in there for your consideration. Um, however, yeah, typically anything over 30 watts is there's kind of an industry consensus that that is hypers scale.

Yeah. I mean I I think part of the the struggle with the conversation and and especially dealing with the public and different stakeholders is just the large differences between what a 30 watt might a 30 megawatt might be and a 75 or 100 plus. There's no uniformity. And so there could be a you know 30 to 50 watt data center that has you know very little creates little concern but you could have in the same category uh just depending on the the style of design and and the things elements they want to pull into that. Um I think we have mitigated against things like those gas turbines uh via what you have here but you know that is concerning because I think you're still create we're not doing enough or I'm concerned we might not be doing enough to uh make the bucket smaller. So pretty much you got data center one big bucket everything in between. I think we are dividing that up somewhat, but I think that creates the potential for um and I think I get where you're coming from uh just from a technical aspect, but this conversation is largely a public perception conversation. And so being able to articulate that, you know, these sides represent, you know, typically you're going to see a closed loop water system. You're going to see uh requirement to have your electrical uh infrastructure built out. And that was another question. Did we address that uh you know typically in terms of when people are concerned about the power uh cost of their individual power going up in the market, it's typically centered around the cost to build out additional infrastructure.

Did we address requiring the vendor to pay for that upfront anywhere?

So there I believe there are currently initiatives um in this legislative session to regulate data centers and that impact on rateayers through the public service commission. However, I believe some of that gets beyond what we have the authority to do within a zoning ordinance. We do have some provisions in uh item six um and requirements uh in terms terms of seeing their plan and guaranteeing that our utility provider will be able to provide full power to that site. However, um in terms of impact on rateayers, I do think that goes a bit beyond zoning.

Uh well, I guess kind of in the same vein, um and requiring them to, you know, one, the power provider, uh be able to meet the need. Do we have room to add language in that space around uh no additional cost to rateayers? Do you know And again, it's just it's the concerns that the public brings are typically around uh increasing utility cost as well as um water usage and then noise pollution. If you can mitigate those things, then you typically um don't have problems in the vein of what the public is bringing forward. councilors uh Julie Bernard uh with the office of city attorney. Um I would have to think on that as to whether we could do that. I mean generally you know rate regulations and all of that is in the purview of the public service commission under you know state law. Um so I do not know if we have that. I would have to look at that law and see if there would be any room for us to have that ability to regulate.

Yeah. I don't I guess not necessarily regulate but just commitment that the infrastructure needed is in place. Yeah. So that's actually part of the um conditions. So if you look at under hypers scale uh item number six

uh 6E it states that known impacts on electric rates or or availability for other uses directly attributable to the hyperscale data center shall be noted. and also uh asked for written confirmation from the electric utility that the necessary capacity is available. Okay. Yeah. So I think that would be sufficient um to my point. So thank you. Uh all right. So there's a lot of um references to basically uh even with these closed loop systems, they have to typically at some point, you know, replace the water, clean them um and the discharging of how they're doing that. How are we addressing, you know, any inspection requirements andor, you know, fees that might be associated with with city staff going to inspect how they're, you know, getting rid of the water? help you accounting for that.

So I I think everything that you know deals with the storm water connection and things like that is and their water system is dealt with in number four. So we do um sort of f further further underline that no data center shall create, maintain or permit an illicit connection or elicit discharge to our municipal storm water system. So that is regulated through our storm storm water rags and we believe um you know pretty robustly. Yeah. No, I agree. But I'm saying how do we police that? Like do we periodically check or like what does that process look like? You know if they are violating that how do we find out?

It's it's tested. and our city engineer reviews that like on I guess are is this similar to what we do with the landfill or you got some periodic testing or like if you could go a little deeper into we're getting uh this the storm water rags and you know all of that's getting a little bit out of my wheelhouse so I'll let Tracy

Hi good afternoon I'm Tracy Hayes and I serve as deputy director of planning engineering permits and um our storm water program manager they manage the elicit discharge. So they do random testing and also they get they're complaint driven. So if they receive a complaint about elicit discharge, they go out and they t they sample. Okay. But they on some sort of rotation just show up different places and test things. Yes. Okay. It's our Yeah. It's part of our MS4 permit. It's a requirement for us to do testing.

Thank you. And like I said, getting a little deeper into it because these are questions that we all have to answer a lot more regularly now. Um, and then two, the setback requirements. Um, on those Do we have like I guess if you could point out setback requirements that are unique to this ordinance? So just say I2, I3, I1, do we have setback requirements for uh these facilities that go beyond the rest of the uh zoning category.

So we these setbacks are unique to data centers. We do have setback requirements for our solid waste disposal facilities um and for some of our other heavy industrial uses. Um and if you are in an I1, I2 or I3 district currently and you abut residential, you're required to maintain whatever that residential district setback is. But these particular setbacks would be unique to data centers. Um all right. So if you could talk about the why like when I read that I'm thinking maybe there's some concern around noise mitigation but if you could talk about the reason for that.

So I think when um when our team was doing research from other cities across the country there were quite a few that had setback requirements unless they were all targeted in one particular area. There are some parts of the country that have created um for lack of a better word industrial parks where just the data centers are permitted. Um we don't have that in Birmingham. We wanted to incorporate them into our existing districts. Um so we felt comfortable with 500 ft and I1 and I3. I1 is going to be the district that would most likely be closest to single family residential. Um, and that's, you know, unfortunately that's the nature of our I1 M1 districts, you know, for the past 60 years. Um, there were single family residential districts and homes that were built right next to some of our industrial uses because the workers would live there and then walk to the site for work. Um, and we've tried to downzone some of those areas, but there are still some I1 sites um that are adjacent to residential districts. So, we did not feel like just a buffering, a landscape and screening buffer would be sufficient, which is why we thought that a setback in addition to buffering and screening would help protect any residential from um one of these in I1 or in I3. In I2, there's very little I2 that actually abuts residential. Um so in I2 we were suggesting that if they do a but residential they utilize that existing residential setback in addition to the buffering and screening requirements.

Okay. So where are the buffering and screening requirements? So the buffering and screening Yeah, I don't see that. But I think that is from an aesthetic point of view probably, you know, in a noise potential. No, we we have a um we require the landscape buffer type.

Okay. So number 11, all roof mounted and ground mounted mechanical equipment, generators, cooling systems, and any substation shall be screened from public view through uh building design, walls, fencing, or a standard C landscaping buffer in accordance with chapter 6, article three of the zoning ordinance. Um, and C is one of our more robust buffer requirements. And that's just the hypers scale category. No, we have buffering and screening for the others as well, but not quite as robust. It's uh

Yeah, I believe we reduced it to a B buffer. Yeah. So just um the standard C involves plantings like shrubbery and trees and that sort of thing.

It can be a combination of plantings and um an opaque fence. Um so it depends on what the applicant would propose. If it's just plantings, it would have to be a deeper buffer. If it is an opaque fence with plantings, it could be the wall and then a landscape strip, but the the planting um that is adjacent to the wall would be on the outside. So, you would see the landscaping from the outside. It does no good if it's on the inside of the wall.

All right. Thank you. All right. Um, I'm sorry. Yeah. So, I mean, I can my head on how just about everything. I think the bus stop thing still kind of feels weird. Uh, but yeah. Yeah. Pass the ball. Councelor Tate.

Thank Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just got a quick question on the medium data center. I think it um correlates with council Woods. I'm curious to know under the medium data center, why did y'all strike 500 ft and change it to 250 ft? So that was based on our conversation with our business community and existing data center stakeholder where we had initially proposed a thousand for hypers scale and then 500 for medium. um just felt it was extremely burdensome and in doing our research aligning it with some other um ordinances around the country we felt that that step down from 500 to 250 especially with our our screening and other requirements was sufficient. So, so you initially started out and correct me if I'm wrong in your conversation with the community start out at 500 ft is what you're saying.

It it initially started at five at 1,000 for hypers scale and 500 for medium. We went down to 500 for hypers scale and 250 for medium. So a medium scale would our existing DC blocks facility in Tittisville would fall into that category. So, that's a good way to picture it. Okay.

Um, back to Councelor Wood's um statement about the transit um setback. So you you stated earlier that this was suggested specifically with the BRT in mind. Um so it says any fixed way guideway transit station which the only fixed guideway that we have is the BRT line rapid transit station. That's obvious uh what that is. commuter rail station or other highcapacity transit facility. So would our other fixed route bus lines fall in the category of other highcapacity transit facility? That would not be planning's determination when they reviewed like those applications. Those those routes which are often fluid and move around uh would not be applicable to this

and it's only the stations. It's not the the the route itself. So like Huh.

Right. Right. Right. So, but I'm thinking about, you know, if you think about First Avenue North, um, going towards Woodlon, there's a lot of, you know, um, currently M1, uh, north of First Avenue North. Um, and there's a BRT station right there at the corner of Is that 34 Street? Um, yeah, I think that's 34th Street. Um, and so under this rule, the data center couldn't locate within 1,000 ft of that that bus stop

unless they applied for a variant from that condition. That's correct. Okay. Okay. And the and the reason is is that you're trying to preserve space for higher density employers.

If we have a 5 acre site in close proximity to one of those areas, the highest investor use most likely would be a more a mixeduse high density multif family development. Not necessarily a 200 to 300,000 square foot in industrial looking type facility

with limited number of employees. Just out of curiosity, um, how did you guys come up with a five acre recommendation for the needed square, you know, area?

So, we kind of looked at other cities across the country and they had a range and we we liked the five acre number. Um, we felt like that was sufficient space for one of these and to meet all of our setback requirements for hypers scale at least. Um, and obviously it could be larger. Um, I think it DC blocks owns 16 acres or more. They they told us they typically don't even consider a site unless it's 15 acres or or more.

Yeah. But we felt more comfortable with a minimum of five. Yeah. Okay. I'm just wondering, you know, like if you have a five five acre site and you're requiring a 500 foot setback, does that make the site undevelopable?

Well, I'm and perhaps that's not the best use of that five acres. Yeah. Gota. All right. Think I can live with that. Any more questions?

Ready to move on this? All right. So, um, you guys had two proposed amendments. The one was the They weren't necessarily amendments. They were just items to consider, right? But I know the one was the hypers scale light and and we just I think we're suggesting that we don't go with that one. The other one was 1,00 ft for the transit setback instead of 1,320.

Yeah. So, I would like to make a motion that we advance uh the proposed zoning data center ordinance to the full council. uh with a recommendation for for approval with the amendment of the setback for the transit state stations uh being 1,000 ft rather than the drafted 1,34 I think it was or 320. Yeah. Second.

All right. Second motion, second. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? All right, that motion passes. Next uh case, our zoning cases are ZAC 2025008. This is a request to change the zone district boundaries from R6 to QMUM in order to construct a mixeduse building consisting of residential and hospitality components.

All right. Thank you. For the record, I'm Christian Togmas and I serve as one of the planners for the city of Birmingham. So, this is KCAC 2025-8 which is located within the Redmont Park neighborhood. The applicant is Randall Miner Mayor Nexon. The owner is Arlington Redevelopment LLC. The applicant is seeking a reszoning from R six, which is our multiple dwelling district, to QMUM, which is our qualified mixeduse medium district in order to construct a mixeduse building consisting of residential and hospitality components. Property is approximately 081 acres in size. It's currently vacant and is located at 1240 22nd Street South in Redmont Park which is just adjacent to Highland Park across the street. Property to the north is zone Q and I which is our qualified office and institutional district. To the south is OI office and institutional district. And both to the east and the west are zone R six multiple dwelling district. The owner is proposing to construct a new mixeduse building consisting of residential and hospitality components. The building is proposed to have a gross building area of approximately 124,000 square ft access primarily from 22nd Street South and has a proposed height of 125 ft which must be approved by the ZBA zoning board of adjustment if the reszoning is approved. So the adopted long range land use plan identifies the property as mixeduse medium and this property is identified in the southside framework area to be reszoned to mixeduse medium. So I'm going to go over the staff comments. So there were none from zoning. No comments from landscape from storm water. All standard permits and ordinances shall apply for any new construction including soil erosion and civil construction permits. The site is not located within a special flood hazard area. There were no comments from the Birmingham Department of Transportation and the applicant went before the Redmont Park Neighborhood Association on February 24th and they

voted four votes to support, 23 votes to not support and as a courtesy they went to the Highland Park Neighborhood Association on March 10th and they voted 20 votes to support and four votes to not support. So the owner provided some Q conditions as well. So if approved for reszoning, the following Q conditions provided should be considered. Number one, submission to an approval by the planning staff of the PEP department of a site development plan to include but not be limited to the location and height of all structures, parking, and ingress and egress. Uses are limited to those allowed in mixeduse medium district excluding the following. And if you'd like, I can go through them and read them off. Uh I think we got them in front of us actually.

Okay. And then the from the ZAC. So they voted in favor as the proposed zoning matches the proposed southside framework resoning and it includes many key conditions to protect the site from any unwanted uses. And that concludes the report. All right. Thank you. Applicant present. Yes.

Good afternoon. Uh, not the applicant. David Silverstein Jr. with the Five Group, 2130 Highland Avenue South, Birmingham, 35205. Uh, here to represent Randall. He's on spring break with his family, but here to also represent um the applicant and or the the owner of the property as we're part of the development team. Uh Christian, thanks for the uh report. I don't really have much to add, but certainly here to answer any questions that you all may have. Um, I know that some of you all are familiar with this project. It's evolved over the years. Um, we're happy to be at this point. Uh, we've worked, uh, vigorously with, uh, both the Highland Park and Redmont Park neighborhoods, um, including, uh, several of their neighborhood officers to come up with a plan that we thought would be representative of the neighborhoods as a whole. Um, one point of clarification is the Redmont Park neighborhood did take one vote to include the reasonzoning and the variance. So they did not vote on the items separately whereas Highland Park uh did. So just wanted to make that that point. Um so

so uh the project generally um you guys are planning on consolidating several parcels and no they the the parcels there were several parcels that has already been replatted um and then there's an alley between the property that has been partially vacated which is part of this lot. So the parcels are already combined. Okay, great. All right. Um but the the project is to develop a um mixeduse building.

Correct. One building approximately 80 keys for the hotel. Um somewhere between 25 27 uh residential units above the hospitality component. Um and then a nice uh restaurant to serve the hotel and the neighborhood and maybe a retail component such as like a high-end spa. All right. Okay. Council Bosel.

Yes, sir. Thank you, Chair. Um, thank you for presenting today. Um, can you walk us through um I'm looking at these recommendations for the neighborhood and you kind of referenced it yourself. Can you walk us through I see the Redmont Park Neighborhoods Association vote four votes to support 23 votes to not support. Um that is pretty significant. Can you walk us through with that vote to not support was a senator around?

Yeah, sure. Um by way of background again we worked on this project. It's been about six years now. It started off as a much more dense project um and then we' scaled it back ultimately redeveloped 2222 Arlington into the the office building. So the original project included a condominium building and a hotel building separate um with some retail components along with it. So that original hotel had about 150 keys with uh closer to 50 condominium units. So, we've significantly downsized the project by redeveloping 2222 and bringing it back online. I would say the the biggest issue with some of the residents is the height, but the other is the use um of it being a hotel. Um, as Christian indicated, as you all are aware, the southern area framework plan uh is likely to move forward at some point this year. The plan calls for this site to be re reszoned to mixeduse medium which would allow for a hospitality component. Uh we originally desired to seek a mixeduse high as we felt it was appropriate being on the boundary of Red Mountain Expressway. It's neighbor by office and institutional uses. There's several other tall buildings um around that gets more towards the variance application with related to the height. But in meeting with uh several members of the residents and the officers, they had a desire not for us to seek a mixeduse high because they were afraid of establishing precedent of mixed use high within that residential area. So ultimately we came up with a game plan. Um had been working through the variance application process. uh feel very good about that and decided to take the timeline of the resoning aspect into our own hands rather than waiting for the framework plan to

ultimately be adopted. So kind of two-part some are opposed to the use, some are opposed to the height.

Can you talk a little Thank you for that. Can you talk a little bit about um the push back on the use and the push back on the height, the reasoning behind both of those? Uh yeah, I mean I can't speak on behalf of them. Everybody has their own opinions. Um there have been comments made that there's a fear that a hotel brings unwanted pe unwanted visitors into the neighborhood. Um the type of hotel that we're looking to bring in is is a high-end. We've been working um with the group out of Auburn that developed the Laurel, which is a five-star hotel. They came out of the the individual that runs this hospitality group came from the Ritz Carlton. So, no offense to any other hotel flags, but this is a very high-end boutique hotel that we think would be actually very complimentary to the city, but also to the neighborhood. Um, Redmont's a wonderful place. We office just down the street. We've done developments there and looking at other projects around the Redmont Highland Park area. Um so I think the fear with the hotel was some people envision a hotel more traffic um late night bars. We're not doing a rooftop bar. Um, if there's any type of bar concept, it would be included as part of a high-end restaurant, which would not be on the rooftop because the condominium units are above the hospitality, the hotel rooms. And if you're selling the type of condominium with the price point that we desire, the the residents that live in the building need to be able to function and live there uh quietly as well. related to the height. Again, we have a difference of opinion. We feel that the

scale is appropriate given its location. It abuts uh the expressway. Um it's next to uh an aldot uh right ofway which is undevelopable. Uh we own the building to the south which is an office building to the north is an office building and then the rest of the block as part of the framework plan is uh ultimately going to become a mixeduse district as well.

Thank you for walking us through that. Um it does sound like a good project itself. Um, I do want to express some hesitation um in my consideration since the Redmont Park neighborhood, which this would lie, um, did vote very strongly against it. Um, so just wanted to kind of speak that out loud and maybe hear from some of my other colleagues. Thank you. Councelor Tate, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, how many uh, keys for the boutique hotel? About 80 keys. About 80. And Talk to me about the condos. How many condos?

Somewhere between 25 and 27 with a a penthouse at the top and one one two three bedrooms or just how many? Uh I don't know. I don't think there are any single bedrooms. The these are luxury condominium units. Two two two some maybe three. And then the penthouse is obviously much larger. Okay. 22 32. I don't have the a definitive answer on the mix of units. I apologize. Okay. And you said a hotel will have um restaurant um and and like like a boutique like you

and a bar inside. Correct. What? Not a separate bar, but it'll be incorporated. I went to a boutique hotel and I wanted me a glass of wine, which I don't drink. That would be accessible to people who would want that to the public. Yes, ma'am. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right, Council Woods. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. And my memory, I feel like we we looked at maybe another variation of this a while back. Uh,

that's correct. So I had mentioned about six five six years ago we were looking at a a development plan that included the entire block which which included the 2222 Arlington building. Um and so with co um you know hospitality developments took a pause and so rather than sitting on the project we we ultimately looked to multi-tenant that office building. So I guess the the the overall footprint shrunk. What about the what other changes in terms of the envelope uh took place? Because I can I remember height being a concern? Uh but looking at this, this is right off of 280. Um but yeah, what other changes I guess envelope took place that you can think of?

Uh from the original plan several years ago,

uh well there the original plan included u points of access off of 22nd Street and and Arlington Avenue is like a cut through. So that's no longer applicable. Um but in terms of the current plan, uh the building envelope has not changed from what is permitted under R six. So we're now that the framework plan, uh is calling for a mixeduse classification, we seek it as an opportunity to bring in a high-end hospitality to the city of Birmingham that quite frankly the city of Mountain Brook with Grand Bohemian captures by default. Um, so we just view this as a wonderful opportunity, but the building envelope itself uh has not changed from what is actually currently permitted under R six.

Thank you. All right. Anything else? Yeah, council Boston. Well, two last questions. How tall is the building currently that's on the property? It's vacant. There's not a building. Right. And uh my last question would be is this is this property currently adjacent to any single family home or approximate to any single family? Adjacent to? No. Depends on how good you're are with your non-Iron in terms of proximity to single family. But

I'm not good at all. Thanks. Uh how approximate to single family home. Um, Kim, you may know single f the Highland Park residents on the other side of the Crescent Denton Cer building are probably the closest single family homes. I don't know the actual distance, but buffered by a 70 foot office tall office building.

Uh, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. So, are these other uh I guess rooftops are these commercial uses? I guess I'm sorry. Could you repeat that question? Some other I guess residential looking properties, but they may be commercial in use. Uh the adjacent property is Sycamore Manor, but it's not single family. There's 25 plus units in that uh development. Okay. And then there think there's some homelike looking buildings but are commercial uses office space.

Yeah. Based on the current zoning map everything around it is uh either D6 or mixed use. Okay, there's no additional questions. We'll I'll make a motion that we recommend this to the full council uh with a recommendation for approval.

Second. All right. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Nay. All right, that motion passes. Thank you. Thank you all for your time. All right, next up we have ZAC 2026 00002, a request to change the zone district boundaries from I4 to I1 in order to allow for the construction of a new convenience store with drive-thru. Mr. Togmas.

Thank you. For the record again, Christian Tognus. I serve as one of the planners for the city of Birmingham. So this is located within the Hooper City neighborhood. The applicant is Mike Ahmed Bagdia. The owner is Sea Serton LLC. So they're seeking a reasonzoning from I4, which is our landfill mining and timbering district to I1 light manufacturing district in order to construct a convenience store with a drive-thru. Property is approximately 1 and a half acres in size. is currently vacant is located at 101 Seratin Drive North. Property to the north is zone D3, single family district. To the south and east are QI1, qualified light manufacturing district, and to the west is zone I4, landfill mining and timbering district. So, they're proposing, like I said, they're proposing to construct a new approximately 4,860t convenience store that will have a quick service uh deli with a drive-thru. There will be four fuel islands with a total of eight pumps, meaning one pump on each side. The proposed hours of operations are 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 7 days a week. There will be approximately uh two to three employees at any time during operating hours. The adopted long range land use plan identifies the property as late industrial. A convenience store is permitted with conditions in I1 and the proposed plan most uh meets both conditions for the use. So the applicant site plan shows 26 parking spaces. Um however the maximum number of parking spaces is 20. However, the applicant has indicated on their site plan that any parking spaces over the maximum will use low impact development and techniques such as pvious concrete pavement. Uh from zoning comments. So if approved, the property owner must reservey the large lot into one separate lot for the proposed use. from landscape. The plan provides um provided seems to not be addressing the perimeter parking and interior parking requirements. Frontage landscape

buffers are shown along Daniel Payne, but no calculations um are provided. The dumpster is not screened with any vegetation. Uh it may suffice once detail of the enclosure is confirmed and there is no foundation planning at the building and I believe it must be a minimum of 50% of the facade frontage. All standard permits and ordinances shall apply for any new construction from storm water. And then the site is not located within a special flood hazard area and from Birmingham Department of Transportation. They would like to see a left turn lane into the site in addition to providing an 8 foot wide concrete side path along the extents of the property. See the applicant went before the Hooper City Neighborhood Association on March 12th and they voted 15 votes to support, zero votes to not support and a possible Q condition. So if approved for reasonzoning, the following Q condition provided should be considered. One, the project engineer must notify the city engineer at least 48 hours prior to the start of construction to allow for city in uh city inspection, issuance of an adverse effects impact letter and confirmation of the concrete class. A signed maintenance agreement between the developer and the city is required to ensure proper maintenance and upkeep of the low impact development, including annual inspections. The zoning advisory committee voted in favor um as there was no one opposing the project and that the proposed zoning designation is far less intense than the current zoning of I4. And that concludes the report.

Okay. Thank you. Um do you happen to know what the previous use of the site was? Um okay. I see that there's a lot of M1 around it. I mean, there's also M2 adjacent to it on one side and M1 on uh the other as aspects of it. I was just wondering why this might be M4, but is the applicant present? Y

I'm not the applicant, but I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Uh, Mike, my name is Reed Peacock. 1720 Windsor Boulevard, Homewood, Alabama 35209. Um, I'm not sure of the previous use of that land. Um, I've been in direct contact with the owner for some time now throughout this project. Um, I'm He bought it some time ago. I'm not sure what the use was. I'm I believe it was just raw land. um to my knowledge in the I think the overall area will be some type of industrial park use. I know there's a tire distributor going to the east of this property

councelor T. So, where where is the applicant? Sorry. Where's the applicant? The applicant. Where is the applicant? He had had he's previously had surgery and can't be here today. Okay. And so, this is off of Daniel Payne Drive. Okay. So, it's over by towards the Flying J. And that's Yeah. So, you pass that pilot flying Jay right off the exit would be to your right. You go past a new turnin road. I don't have it in front of me. Um, it goes back to a another

industrial use um that is a newer road that's been put in in the past couple of years. Okay. And so it's it's not it's over on the industrial side, not where the the people homes are. No, there's some homes across the street and then as mentioned, there are some homes behind this.

Um, but most of it is zoned uh I have it here. Um most of it zoned light industrial and then the uh pilot is zoned C2 and then there's that D3 that is back behind it to the northeast of this property and you have I1. We thought there were several classifications to go forth with, but we thought I one was the best use of that as there's I1 surrounding this property across the street behind it um and to the west. Okay, I'm kind of looking, so give me a second here. So off of Sarum Road, you would have to literally drive off this road to to get is it is this Coberg Road that we getting on right here?

Yeah. So you wouldn't you would just enter off Daniel Pane. Campbell Lane. Campbell Lane. Okay. Yeah. So the entrance would be on Daniel Payne, right? And it's closer to uh Center Street, I guess. 40th Terrace North. Center Street. Okay. So, it's on that that side if I get off on the Daniel Payne exit and come in front of the Flying J. So, it should be like it's on the same side of the road as the Flying J. Okay. So, one of those side roads will take you to where he's trying to do.

So, you would still enter on D off Daniel Payne. You wouldn't go up that side road that goes back to that industrial building. Okay. All right. That's all the questions I have. Thank you. All right, Council Boss, you good? All right. All right. Uh committee, I'm going to make a motion to recommend this to the full council for approval. All right. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Can you make a Can you amend that for the Q to include the Q's if you want?

Uh, yes. Um, I'm sorry. Let me do you want me to read that? Yes. Yes. So the project engineer must notify the city engineer at least 48 hours prior to the start of the construction to allow for city inspection issuance of an adverse effects impact letter and confirmation of the concrete class. A signed maintenance agreement between the developer and the city is required to ensure proper maintenance and upkeep of the LI including annual inspections.

Right. So just for clarification that's the only key the ones you stated are the only Q conditions that would apply. Correct. So my let the record reflect that my motion included the Q conditions. All right. All in favor say I. I. All right. Got that taken care of. Okay. That completes our zoning cases. Any old business? All right. Motion to adjurnn. All right.