Planning & Zoning Committee - Regular Meeting

COUNSELOR VASA AND MYSELF ARE THE CO-CHAIRS. TODAY IS TUESDAY, JUNE 9. WE'LL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS TO CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 12, 2026 MEETING. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE DATE ON CURRENT MEETING MINUTES NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED TO MAY 12. Just a note, Kim Spurl's spelling of her name under the framework plan needs to be corrected. So if there's any other additions or corrections that need to be made, we can entertain a vote to approve the minutes. Motion to approve. Second. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those minutes are approved. Next item is the Southern Area Framework Plan rezoning. Mr. McCluskey, or Ms. Spurl.

It feels like we were just together. I'm Kim Spurl. I'm the zoning administrator for the city of Birmingham in the Department of Planning, Engineering, and Permits. Our planning team is also here to answer any questions you guys have. We just have a very short presentation. This and Pratt-Ensley are our last two framework plan rezonings, so we are in the home stretch, and we thank you for your patience through this process. All right, so just real quick to refresh everyone, the neighborhoods that are in the southern area, In the Crestline community, we have Crestline and Eastwood. In the Crestwood community, it is Crestwood North and Crestwood South. And then the Red Mountain community is Forest Park, South Avondale, Highlands Park, and Redmont Park. And just a quick overview, you guys have heard these so many times the past six months, you can probably recite this to us, but the goals of our community-wide rezoning Is number one to align with our goals that were identified in the comprehensive plan that the city adopted. My favorite is to consolidate the zoning ordinance. Once this process is complete, the zoning ordinance will be cut in half. And so we will be able to get rid of a couple hundred pages of our zoning ordinance, which contains all of the old districts. We are also looking to down zone inactive heavy industrial uses. and any sites that were heavy industrial that are abandoned or vacant. We also through these plans have looked to expand our mixed use districts to create more vibrant walkable communities and to implement urban neighborhood and strategic areas to provide more flexible housing options for our citizens. Um, another reminder that you guys have heard us say over and over again related to Q conditions. So Q conditions are those qualified conditions that the council puts on individual rezoning cases. So what we have done, any existing queue conditions that the council has adopted in the past, we have just carried those queue conditions over to these properties and we have not added any new queue conditions as part of any of our citywide rezoning processes. So this slide is, I know it's hard to read, this outlines the community engagement that we have had with these communities. We started in September of 2024 with an initial community meeting, and then we followed that up with a virtual open house. In October of 2024, in November 2024, we had two more community meetings to discuss the rezoning plans. And then in January of 2025, we held a community neighborhood officer workshop to talk through the rezoning plans in the process. Then in March of 2025, we had another community-wide meeting and then a planning commission workshop with just our Highland Park neighborhood in May of 2025. And then the planning commission in November of 2025 held their official meeting to vote on these three community-wide rezoning plans. We then had three follow-up meetings with just the Highland Park neighborhood in December of 2025, March of this year, and April of this year to try and work out some of their concerns with the rezoning plan. So real quick, for Crestwood and Crestline, I'll highlight the changes that we made from our original map that we proposed to them to where we are today. And we have the large scale maps if you guys would like to take a look at them. We'd be happy to move them closer if you'd like. We did change property at 1230 50th Street South from D5, which was multifamily residential, to QD3. There were Q conditions associated with that property. And then 6001 Crestwood Boulevard was changed from D3 to QC2 as there were Q conditions related to that property as well. And then in the Crestline community, the properties at 4628 and 4616 Montevallo Road were changed from C1 to C2. And then properties at 5101 and 5113 of Porto Madre Boulevard were changed from C1 to C2, which was neighborhood commercial to general commercial. For our Red Mountain community, we did have a few more changes as a result of our community meetings. You guys might be familiar with some of these requests. 3920 Montclair Road was changed from D5 multifamily to D3. 2413 Arlington Avenue South went from D3 to MUL, which is mixed use low. Um, Arlington avenue properties, 24, 20, 24, 14, and 24, 10 went from D four to mixed use low. And then 24, 24 Arlington avenue changed from D five to mixed use. Low 2400 Arlington avenue was changed from C one to mixed use low. And then we had five additional properties on Arlington avenue that were changed for mixed use medium. to mixed use low, and then two properties on 22nd Street. And all of these changes were a result of feedback that we received from the community and from the neighborhood. So then we have the Highland Park neighborhood. We've had multiple changes in Highland Park. I'll just hit a few of those. You guys have the presentation in front of you. There were 55 parcels that were zoned R7, which was our multiple dwelling district. And they were in the 26th Street South and Highland Avenue corridor. We originally proposed to rezone those to mixed use medium. After neighborhood input, we changed 42 of those parcels to D5, which is multifamily. Five parcels remained mixed-use medium, and eight were changed to mixed-use low. On 30th Street South, which is north of Road Circle, there were 20 parcels that have existing R6 multiple dwelling district zoning. After neighborhood input, we changed five of those parcels to D4, which is our two-family cottage townhouse and small multifamily district. Three parcels were changed to MUM, mixed-use mediums. and then 12 parcels were changed to D5 multifamily. Then the areas bounded by 10th Avenue South, 25th Street South, Hanover Circle, 11th Avenue South, Highlands Court, Road Circle, and 30th Street South. This area had 155 parcels that we originally proposed to rezone to urban neighborhood. After neighborhood input, all of those parcels were changed. 105 of those were changed to D3 single family. 25 were changed to D4. And then 25 were changed to D5. So those simply became changes in name only. So we went from R3 to D3. We went from R4 and R4A to D4, and then we went from R5 to D5. So we have eliminated all urban neighborhood in Highland Park at the request of that neighborhood association. And then the area bordered by Pawnee Avenue, 34th Street South, 30th Street South, and Highland Avenue, all 90 of those parcels were originally slated to become urban neighborhood. And at the request of the Neighborhood Association, we changed all of those parcels. 35, our zone, we're proposing for D4. 10, D5, and 45 will be zoned D3. So once again, we did remove all urban neighborhood from the Highland Park neighborhood. So there are 34 properties that the Neighborhood Association would like for us to change. And so this just gives you kind of a snapshot of the uses that have been confirmed at those 34 properties in staff. proposes to keep them as they are on the map. We are trying to avoid creating legal non-conforming properties. So if you see there's some multifamily properties, there's some commercial properties, there's also some properties that have ADUs which are accessory dwelling units. We have a couple of quadplexes, two triplexes, and five duplexes. And then there are only 13 single family properties in that total. And we've also tried to avoid changing the zoning mid-block. We don't want to create islands of different zoning classifications in the middle of another block that is zoned something else. Um, so, um, we have tried, we've worked, um, with the Highland Park Neighborhood Association to down zone all of the other properties. Um, but these 34, um, they disagree with our plan for these specific properties. And that's it for southern area. We have the maps if you guys have specific questions about the properties. And we'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Yeah, just to clarify, so on the 34 properties that there's still, you know, remaining disagreement about what the Neighborhood Association... You guys in the presentation have this list. So... Are... You know, I'm a little confused because this list doesn't necessarily reflect the... actual zoning designation.

Okay. The list in...

This list.

Okay, so there should have been a separate list that was sent to the committee. as part of your packet. If you don't have it, we can make copies for you. But we actually have a table that shows the address of each property, the current zoning, what the initial proposed zoning was and what we're proposing now. But we can make additional copies if you guys need it.

Yeah, that would be really helpful because ultimately that's kind of where my

So what we ended up doing, some of the properties were R7, R6, R5, and we just changed them in names. So we changed them, they're all either D5 or D4.

Okay, so the proposed rezoning, My concern is that the rezoning reflect what the property is actually being used for currently. So if I were to walk down the sidewalk and I see a multifamily building on this parcel, I, my thought is that, okay, that needs to be zoned D five. Um, so, uh, yeah, if we could get the table and just, absolutely.

Um, and, and just so all of the properties, none of them were zoned single family. There are 13 single family properties included. but we just, for those 13 that were single family, we just maintained the same zoning. So if it was our five, we just changed it to D five. If it was our four, we just made it D four. We didn't actually down zone any of those 34 properties. Right.

So I'm curious about the 13 single family properties. Um, Can you explain the disagreement there?

There's only four that are actually adjacent to each other. And we can make copies of this map for you guys as well. These are the 13 single family properties. There's only one cluster where they're actually contiguous to each other. So you would have random single family zoning in the middle of a block that is zoned D4 or D5. And we were trying to avoid those islands of zoning. And what we've tried to do throughout this whole process, if you have a block that's D4, we've tried to keep it D4 and not create random parcels in the middle of the block that you may have one house in a block of 10 properties that single family and Jonet single family. Because single family is allowed in D4, we've tried to maintain the character of that district. And I'll be happy to let you guys look at the map if you'd like. These are those 13 single family properties.

The property is with ADUs. Again, the table would be helpful.

Right. So ADUs are not currently allowed in D3. So we kept those as D4 or D5 depending on if they were R4 or R5 because that would make the ADU legal non-conforming.

Right.

And we tried as much as possible to avoid creating more legal non-conforming properties. We realized that because of some of the concessions we have made that we are doing that, but we're trying to avoid legal non-conforming if at all possible, especially if we have confirmed the use, that there is a house with an ADU. Thank you, Hannah. And then I know we've had some issues come up with this community in particular about historic preservation. So Hannah is the city's historic preservation manager, and she's here to answer any questions you guys might have as it relates to zoning changes and historic character and historic preservation. But this table, these are the 34 properties. So you'll see the property address. Then we have the current zoning. Then we have what our initial proposed zoning was in 2024. And then the change if there was one for what we are currently recommending. And then you will see the actual use that has in red is the use that's been confirmed by staff. And SF means single family. We abbreviated. And then the ADU is accessory dwelling unit. And we did find an unlicensed event center during our research. Yes, ma'am.

Oh, interesting.

It's amazing what you find when you dig deeper into some of these properties.

Well, a question about that. So is a... event center and allowed use in D5?

It is not and we originally recommended to change that to mixed use medium and received pushback from the community and so we agreed to down zone it to D5 making it legal non-conforming which is against what we wanted to do but we were willing to compromise on those two locations with the neighborhood knowing that they would be legal non-conforming and then the illegal event center is just illegal it's never been conforming so there's two plus there's the illegal one that would be legal non-conforming

So just to restate that, the staff's initial proposed zoning was to make those legal. Yes, sir. And the neighborhood's saying we want to keep them illegal, basically.

They wanted to retain the property as residential zoning area. I'm assuming in the event that the event center were to leave, then it wouldn't open the door up for other mixed-use medium uses.

Yeah. But mixed-use medium would allow the property to be used as residential. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Okay.

Question, Kim, on the 11-15 illegal events.

Are they doing events there? So we've done, we actually were able to track that via social media and they were actually, they are charging for events. They have not had one in several months. So we are monitoring to see when their next event is so that we will be able to send our enforcement team out.

Okay. Thank you, Kim.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, other questions? Yes. Council Rossell. Thank you.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. HEY, CAM. I APPRECIATE THE WORK OF PUP STAFF. THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING. I THINK I SAW THE TIMELINE LIKE TWO YEARS PLUS ON THIS CONVERSATION JUST WITH THE SOUTHERN FRAMEWORK AS A WHOLE. I KNOW WE'RE SO CLOSE AND I KNOW THERE ARE SEVERAL FRAMEWORK PLANS THAT ARE PART OF THIS PROCESS THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED. AND THIS IS SORT OF THE LAST ONE THAT WE'RE WORKING ON. SO I'M EXCITED TO SEE THAT WE ARE SORT OF NEAR COMPLETION AS WE GET TO THIS. So thanks for that work. I saw on another document that if I'm not mistaken, and it may be in the packet you provided that there were about 580 properties.

So that number we provided at the neighborhood meeting two meetings ago and it's my fault. I counted double. So it's half that.

Okay.

So that instead of the five 80 out of the six 20 it's three 20.

Okay.

Um, but there's still around 20 properties that we disagree on, but every other property has been amended.

Okay, got you. So there were amendments on what was originally proposed by PEP staff with conversations with neighborhood that resulted in 320 that were amended from their original.

So there were a total of 320 properties, and out of 320, we have changed the zoning at the neighborhood's request of 300 of those. Okay.

Thank you. And as I'm looking through this document, I mean, I know at the heart of one of the main concerns for the neighborhood is these, they're beautiful historical homes and they could be fashioned into something else, right? And that's something else could be a multifamily use as an example. And as I understand correctly, if I'm wrong, a D4 zoning could allow up to 12 units.

Depending on the size of the lot. That is correct. We do have a density requirement.

And then D5 zoning could allow up to an apartment complex. So that could be correct.

D5 allows over 12 units. But once again, it's dependent upon the size of the lot.

Thank you. So I know that, again, a lot of work has been done, a lot of conversations has been had. Again, we're so close. I do understand a concern about historic homes being turned into multifamily, and that's something that's no surprise. It's a discussion we've had. As I'm looking through this list, and I don't have a page number, but the title says revisions to original rezoning plan for the 34 properties. As Councilor O'Quinn pointed out, it does seem like there are already within this list 16 single family properties that are used as single family. So it seems to me that if the use is concurrent with single family, that that is one opportunity for movement towards that from a zoning standpoint?

It's actually 13. The others have ADUs. So if we down zone those to D3, that would make them legal non-conforming. And then once again, the reason why staff did not want to change The zoning of those 13, they were originally zoned R4, R4A, or R5. And we also, as I said before, if you look at the map, we do not, it's just not general good planning practice to put a different zoning in the middle of a block. You guys have seen how convoluted our zoning map can be. And so good planning practice, especially while we're doing this exercise, is to try and create blocks that have the same zoning so we don't create random spots of different kinds of zoning. So that's why we have disagreed on these 13 properties.

Gotcha. I can appreciate that. I'm just kind of curious as I'm looking at these. I'm kind of saying 16, the 13 single families plus the three single family properties with ADUs. It seems like those would be sort of low, low rung, sort of easily accessible in terms of opportunities to convert zoning down zone from D4 or 5 to D3. So I just kind of wanted to say that out loud. As for the remainder, 34 minus 16, Lord, what would that math be? Somewhere around 18, I think. The remaining 18, I know the main concern there, because I can see the uses are not single family for those. Some might be even commercial, multifamily, quadplex, triplex, duplex, and a gazebo. that for some of those properties, the main concern there is historic home converted into, right? So talk to me a little bit, walk me through what mechanisms exist beyond just the zoning map that could offer protections, real protections with real teeth around making sure that historic homes can stay historic in nature, because I know that's the main concern.

So in addition to the regular zoning, this area, the Highland park neighborhood does have an overlay district that is a kind of a version of a form-based code. So any new construction would be subject to that overlay and it has stricter design standards associated with it. And then Hannah can speak to some of our historic requirements.

Good afternoon. I'm Hannah Garman. I serve as the Historic Preservation Manager for the city. Highland Park is one of our locally regulated historic districts. So any exterior changes to a current building or new construction goes through that design review process to make sure it fits within the character and feel of the neighborhood. So besides the overlay district, which controls your kind of massing sides, and setbacks, local historic district dictates the design, and in those design standards are those guidelines for new construction or exterior changes.

Thank you, Hannah. So as an example, let's say there are two triplex properties that I'm interested in. They're available. I purchased them, and I want to turn that into, let's say they're D5 zoned. I want to turn that into an apartment building.

So if the building is in current use and you don't have a demolition plan, it would kind of be hard to do those additions to convert a single family to be multifamily. But you would go through that design process. So you would submit for your permitting. It would be flagged for historic review. We would then review that project and then let them know if they need to submit anything else. In that request, they submit their proposed changes as well as any other plans for the property. That then is reviewed by the Highland Park Local Historic District, who reviews and makes a recommendation to the Birmingham Design Review Committee, who then meets and makes the final decisions. I will say, if you have a local historic advisory committee, that recommendation can be overturned by the Birmingham Design Review Committee with a two-thirds vote. So the weight of the Highland Park Local Historic Advisory Committee carries weight. You have to have that two-thirds majority to overturn that recommendation.

Thank you, Hannah. All right, let me read this.

Yeah, just a quick question. I think this has come up before regarding the historic district. So obviously, there's some more. I mean, I think what people think about when they're talking about historic district is Highland Park as it existed in the 1930s and 40s. but that's not the actual legal definition of historic in this context. Is that correct?

Correct. So Highland Park has a period of significance. So we look at that period of significance of when kind of development started and then when development ends. So when we are really generally looking at this nomination to be considered historic, you look at the requirement as you be at least 50 years of age. So when a lot of these districts, Highland Park is comprised of five national registered districts that make up that local design review district. When those districts were listed in the early 90s, 50 years back was 1940-ish. So none of the buildings constructed after 1940 in that nomination were considered historic and were considered non-contributing. Now when we look at districts, we look at more of a practical end. We know that there's periods of building throughout. And Highland Park is reflective of that trend. It was a streetcar neighborhood. It wasn't made for cars. And it has its own little commercial downtown core because it was its own little core at one time. So these neighborhoods weren't laid out for cars. They weren't laid out for these kind of modern things. And as districts change and grow, those things changes and grows. So when we look at a place like Highland Park, what was going on in Birmingham in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, you saw a really uptick need for that neighborhood. lower multi-family housing and so you start to see places of infill in these districts where you have buildings that were constructed in the 50s 60s and 70s when we go back and reevaluate this district today under our standards if we were to update this district we would include those buildings constructed in the 50s 60s and 70s as contributing to this neighborhood into its story so even though the period of significance technically ends in the 1940s, we want to include all of these other resources as well because they help tell our story of time through neighborhoods and that change.

Okay. I guess my point was in asking that question is that would those, those are not considered contributing structures currently?

I would have to look at each one. Um, most of them are probably considered contributing because they probably still retain historic integrity. So they still look historic to us. Um, so I would just have to look at each individual one in its listing, but the majority of them are probably going to be contributing resources. And I will say that when we're looking at design, design doesn't usually dictate use for us when we're evaluating in historic districts. But we're going to look at what fits in on the size of the lot. That's going to be evaluated. Does it fit within the character and feel of the neighborhood? Does it look like it fits in here? come away with you know a big box store or anything like that it has to meet those design standards and meet those character defining features within the neighborhood so you can't just throw up you know anything that you want it has to follow and meet those design standards that's approved by the design review committee

Thank you. I kind of feel like we went down a little tangent there, but I think that answers my inquiry. So other questions? Well, I'm sorry. So we have some properties on this list, again, going back to the 34... There are some that were R5 and we're trying to do away with the R5 designation, go to the new designation D5.

And we also are eliminating the R6 and R7 and R4A.

Right, right, right. But I'm just looking at some of these. So we've got... ONE THAT'S A TRIPLEX, APPARENTLY VACANT. AND IT WAS CONVERTED TO A TRIPLEX, I GUESS. I'M TALKING ABOUT 2900 ROAD CIRCLE. WAS THAT CONSTRUCTED AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE? Does it look like a single-family house?

So our team actually went to each site to confirm. So the ones that are not single-family, they have multiple doors and multiple mailboxes.

Okay. Gotcha. All right. So I'm going to assume that the neighborhood's objection is is to them remaining as multifamily. Um, so they would prefer that those.

So it's my understanding from our meeting with the neighborhood association, um, that their preference for these 34 properties is for them to be down zones or to place Q conditions on the use of the properties or to create a D for a district. So those were kind of their three suggestions to staff.

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the D4A.

There's not one. Yeah, they would like to bring back the R4A and create a D4A. That was one of the suggestions.

Yeah, so I'm not familiar with... are for a either. So how was that different?

It was very similar to our four. Um, it was just so back when it was actually, um, created, it actually started to allow some smaller condominium unit. Some condominiums are a unit of ownership, not necessarily a use, but in our old ordinance, they were defined as a use. So R4A was just a subset of R4 that had some specific uses attached to it.

Okay. Gotcha. So just sort of a blanket statement, the neighborhood would like those 34 properties to be down zone. I'm assuming that means D3, right? is what their preference would be.

Yes, sir. Their preference was to down zone to D3 or create QD4 or create D4A.

Gotcha. Okay. All right. But otherwise, we're... Otherwise, the other properties, yes. Yes.

We have met multiple times on all of the other properties.

Crestwood, Crestline. Eastway. Red Mountain. All of those are squared away.

Yes, sir. Okay. That's correct.

Yeah. So we're just kind of stuck on these ones that we disagree on. Gotcha.

Yep, go ahead, Council Boss. One comment here, and Kim, I'm just throwing a wrench into sort of this right here, maybe or maybe not, maybe it's workable. All right, looking at this, 34 properties. If we were to take the 13 single-family properties and the three single-family properties with an ADU, that's 16 of them, convert those to D3, that to me seems... sort of simple enough since the use is single family. And for the remaining, just maybe sort of ask that the neighborhood work with PEP to create some limits or identify zoning mechanisms that could limit the maximum of four dwelling units per parcel, because that's the main concern that I've heard for a lot of these from the neighborhood. Talk to me about that.

So that would mean we would have to create a new zoning district just for Highland Park for less than 20 properties. So I don't know that a brand new zoning district just for one neighborhood is warranted. I would I don't think we would be open to creating the new zoning district. We might be open to to possibly down zoning the 13 single family to D3 if they would agree to the rest of the proposed zoning changes.

So this is a comment to my fellow committee members. You know, this is a conversation we're kind of working this out to find a A SOLUTION MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE CONCERNED CONFIRMED SINGLE FAMILY I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH MAKING THOSE D3 EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE THE ONLY PARCEL ON A BLOCK THAT'S D3 IN AN ISLAND OF D4 D5 I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT FOR THE OTHER PROPERTIES YOU KNOW, ONES THAT ARE CONFIRMED SOMETHING OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY ADOPT THE APPROPRIATE ZONING CATEGORY. triplex with ADUs, that's the zoning category that fits for that use. What's on there currently would be D5, correct?

Correct.

Yeah. So again, I don't have any problem with making the zoning match what the property is actually being used for. putting that out there. And that would include the properties that are being used for something other than a residence, like event center. So where you guys propose mixed use medium, you know, again, my suggestion is you make the zoning match what the use is. So just putting that out there as a conversation starter.

Yeah. Uh, I, I, I think I would, uh, certainly be comfortable with those 13 single family properties remaining as such. their use identifying their zoning, as well as the three single family properties with an ADU. That, to me, seems like a simple enough movement to D3 for a down zone. And as for the remaining, I hear that point about allowing the use to follow the zoning. In some cases, however, and Kim, this is another question I had, say a triplex. A TRIPLEX COULD TECHNICALLY BE D4, NOT D5, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

I'M SORRY, COUNSELOR.

THAT'S OKAY. A TRIPLEX COULD THEORETICALLY OR BY ZONING CODE BE D4 ZONE, NOT D5.

IT COULD. WE WOULD HAVE TO DETERMINE THE SIZE OF THE LOT. to make sure that we meet the density requirements and we're not creating a legal non-conforming triplex. So we would have to check all of these sites to confirm which zoning category it would have to be. We'd have to do a deeper dive.

Yeah, so my understanding was that D4 would not be triplex, it would be duplexes.

So D4 was changed about a year and a half ago when we made the amendments to include urban neighborhood. And so D4 now allows duplex, triplex, quadplex, and a small multiplex, which means no more than 12 units. But it's all the number of units is based off the size of the lot. So the smaller the lot, the fewer number of units would be allowed. which are also the same uses that are allowed in the urban neighborhood district.

Right. So those carry over to D4 in general.

I couldn't hear your question. I'm sorry.

They allow uses in the UN carries over to.

So this neighborhood district, Voted to remove all urban neighborhoods, so they did not want any properties to be zoned urban neighborhood in their community Which is why we reverted back to the d4 Because a good number of them were proposed to be urban neighborhood Right but my question is indeed for you can do tropics Yes in d4 and urban neighborhood and in d5 you can do a triplex. I

and up to 12 units for a D4 as well.

Correct. A multiplex is allowed in urban neighborhood and D4 with a max of 12 units based off your lot size.

And I guess in reference to these other 13, I think you mentioned some of them on these lines, but you didn't want to do QD for

So as part of all of our community framework rezoning that we've done across the entire city, we have not added Q conditions. That's not part of this process. Yeah. Q conditions are when an individual property owner applies to rezone their property and their Q conditions specific to that individual property. Um,

What is it about just these 13 properties that these are the only ones that want to be D3? Are these the individual properties?

We have not spoken to any of the residents individually for these properties. They were identified as either R4, R5, R6, or R7. So we just did a lateral zoning change. So if they were R4, they went to D4. If they were R5, they went to D5. If they were R6 or R7, they were downzoned to either D4 or D5. And that was because they are in a block with other properties that have similar zoning. None of them are in a block where there's contiguous single family on either side of them.

So these will be a single family residence next to an apartment?

Correct. They could be next to a duplex. They could be next to an apartment building. In some cases, they might be next to a commercial use.

Do you know if they have historic designations out of these 13?

I do not. Since they are in the Highland Park neighborhood, my guess is that the majority of them do. but we could confirm that with our historic preservation staff.

I got to ask about the gazebo. Can you explain that one to me? I have an image of what a gazebo is.

Yeah, it's its own lot. It's on its own property. And so when staff went out to research it, it has its own address. It's just a standalone accessory structure on a lot that did not contain a primary structure.

Okay. Okay.

Kim, I would be curious to see what this list looked like with the following recommendations. One would be that 16 parcels that are currently single family would move to D3. That there would be historical designation identified for each of the parcels on the list. And for sort of the remaining, so 34 minus 16, the 18 remaining, what the lot size allowance could allow for even. Because if the lot size doesn't allow for a multifamily, then it almost is to some degree, correct me if I'm wrong or relevant, what the zoning is to some degree in that the use could not follow that purpose. And then the fourth would be for the remaining, whatever that amount is, to see what zoning mechanisms could exist to limit the movement of that property beyond four units. And I only say that because if I was living in a neighborhood and didn't realize that the

purchase a home and I've been living there for 20 30 years and I didn't realize the home next to me could be turned into a 12 unit that would raise a flag for me I would be personally well they can be changed into that now and that's kind of been what you know we're not up zoning any of these properties in some instances are actually down zoning so we're not changing anything sick that that was not previously allowed And I don't know that there are any zoning conditions that we could place on just these specific properties that would prevent someone if their house burned down in a D4, if they meet the density requirements and they go through the Highland Park overlay process and they go through the historic process, they go to the local neighborhood, then they go to DRC. and all of those items are approved, there's nothing in our ordinance that would prevent them from going from single family to a duplex if they met all those requirements. But we feel like those protections are in place and that that is sufficient to prevent someone from tearing down one of these structures and building a multifamily building that doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood.

Appreciate that Kim So I would move to recommend that we look at in a document one more revision on the document And of course, I'm just one there's a committee here But my recommendation would be to move to the 16 single families to d3 That we look at what the historic designation is for the remainder of the properties and and also with a lot size allowance could be used for. And then we could look at what the remaining is.

So that would be like a motion for a follow-up meeting. Yeah, so I would want to work that out before we advance the framework plan rezoning out of committee.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, I'd support that. Yeah, and I would say for the others, you know, I guess the 18 that don't fall into that single family use category, maybe having the square footage on all of these parcels would be some useful information.

I don't know if that requires a motion or not, but is that... Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. So the I think that's the recommendation is that we delay action on this item and gather more information, you know, in accordance with council bosses request. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. All right. So that item is delayed until our next meeting. And we'll get the additional information. So next up, we have a zoning case, ZAC 2025-27.

So this is just an update. At the previous P&Z meeting, you guys reviewed the Pratt-Ensley maps and voted to send them to council. We did, when we were updating our queue conditions documents, we did find some additional queue conditions that were not included in what was presented to the committee. So we wanted to be completely transparent with you guys and make sure that you saw the completed document with the updates. So the updates to the queue conditions are in red. And so this is the document that will be sent with the existing queue conditions when we set the public hearing for this plan. So the zoning on the maps that you approved has not changed. We just added Q in front of it and included these Q conditions that were adopted by previous councils via individual rezoning cases.

So you're just correcting the zoning through the use of Q since it was already previously voted. Correct.

We, it's been difficult for us to pull some of the old cases, um, in our, in the system that we have. And so we try to do at least two or three checks throughout the process. And when we did our final check before we submitted the item to set the public hearing, we found that we were missing a few of these cues and we just wanted you guys to be aware of it. So when you see it on an agenda, you'll be familiar with that.

So we're not adding cue conditions. These are existing cue conditions. We're just correcting the record.

That is correct. Yes, sir. Got it.

Um, so do we, need to take some action to keep that Inslee framework plan going, or is this just like an information thing?

If the committee would like to make a motion to send to the council with the updated queue conditions, we would appreciate that motion, and then we can include them in the packet when we set the public hearing.

Okay, so moved. Question.

Yeah. Quick question. So Kim, these, um, items that you submitted in read just goes along with these. Yes, ma'am. Had it to these cute conditions.

They're existing conditions. They were just not in the document that we presented to you guys in may. Um, because they were, the zoning was correct on the map. The conditions themselves were not listed. And when we set the public hearing, we have to advertise these cues like we do with others. So we just want you guys to be aware we're not trying to sneak anything by you.

So these are all the current cue conditions.

Yes, ma'am. That is correct. Thank you, Kim.

Okay. We're not hearing this case today. Okay. All right. We got it.

OK, SO BEEN MADE A MOTION IN SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. SO THAT MOTION PASSES. NEXT UP WE HAVE UPDATE ON THE APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ZVA, AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. SO WITH REGARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE RECEIVED, WE'VE REVIEWED THE APPLICANTS AND COUNSELOR VASA AND MYSELF INTERVIEWED ALL OF THE APPLICANTS AND I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE A LIST IN FRONT OF ME. WE DO HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SOMEBODY HELP ME OUT WITH OUR FINAL LIST.

YES, PLEASE. THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE CHARLES MILLER, RON HAMNER, AND JORDAN WARREN FOR BIRMINGHAM PLANNING COMMISSION.

Those would be six-year terms, if I remember correctly.

Is that correct? Yes, that's correct, Kim.

It depends on if they're filling an unexpired term from a member who resigned. We can work with you, Tony, on their resolution to appoint them and have the exact dates.

Okay. Yeah, thank you for pointing that out. That might be helpful information as we move forward deciding who gets in what spot, depending on when the term expires. So any questions from the committee about our recommendations? All right, so I make a motion that we ADVANCE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS THROUGH THE FULL COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

SAY AGAIN.

ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT PASSES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION. NOW FOR ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I BELIEVE WE HAVE One, we've had one applicant. That applicant is Valerie Abbott. Is there only, there's one applicant, but there's more than one vacancy.

I think it's one applicant. We have two vacancies. on that board.

Okay. And for those vacancies, is there a same situation where those are vacancies that may have different expiration dates? Okay.

Yes, sir. And I know one of the vacancies is a realtor.

So qualifications are required. Correct. Okay. All right. Got it. Okay, so Co-Chair Vassa and myself are making the recommendation that we advance our recommendation to the full council to appoint Valerie Abbott to the Zoning Board of Adjustment to fill one of those vacancies. That would be the member at large. OK, yes. So Zoning Board of Adjustment has several positions that you have to have professional qualifications for. But the position that we would be recommending her appointment for would be a member at large. So I'll put that in the form of a motion. Second. All right. This motion is seconded. All in favor say aye. I and so that advances to the full council and then we've been notified that we have four positions on the design review committee that are expiring in July. I believe the exact date is July 30th. Some of those are also positions that require professional qualifications. I think at least two of them are. And I know there's at least one that's a member at large position. We have not yet advertised those vacancies. So, Councilor Vassa and or myself will need to start announcing that, um, publicly and receiving, uh, applicants for that, that those vacancies, um, and inquire with the folks that are currently, uh, in those positions. Number one, are they eligible for reappointment? Uh, meaning that they've only served one term, um, And if they are, whether or not they would want to be reappointed. So still have some work to do on that. So we're not ready for any action on the design review committee appointments. Is there any old or new business that we need to cover? If not, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. All in favor say aye.