Planning & Zoning Committee - Regular Meeting

We'll hopefully at some point one of our other counselors will join us and we'll have a quorum and can move items as a committee rather than just the co-chairs. So we'll call this meeting to order. This is the Planning and Zoning Committee. Counselor Vassa and myself are co-chairs of the committee. Today is Tuesday, June 23rd. The WE HAVE MINUTES FROM JUNE 9TH THAT WE'LL CONSIDER IF ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE JOINS US. AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AN ITEM OUT OF ORDER. SO WE'RE GOING TO DO THE ZONING CASE FIRST. ITEM NUMBER 4 ON OUR AGENDA, ZAC 2026-8003.

Good afternoon. My name is Michael Ward. I serve as principal planner in the city's planning, engineering, and permits department. This is case number ZAC 2026-08003. This is an application to change zone district boundaries from D3 single family residential to deform medium density residential in order to allow for a duplex that was converted from a single family detached dwelling without permits or approval. This case is filed by RRR Investment Group, LLC, property owner and applicant. The location is 5900 Avenue W. Subject property consists of one parcel containing 0.3 acres with an existing duplex. The property is located within the Green Acres neighborhood. The current zoning is D3 single-family district, which allows for single-family detached use, as well as the others that's listed in your packet. The proposed zoning, D4, medium density residential district, allows for a duplex as well as the other listed uses that's listed, except for number four that's in your information because it lists multiple family district, and that's not an allowed use in D4. So I just wanted to make that note. To the north of the subject property, it's D4 medium density. To the south is D3. As well as to the east, the zoning is D3. And to the west, the zoning is C2 general commercial district. The applicant is requesting a D4 medium density residential district in order to allow for a duplex that has been converted from a single family residence without required permits and without the appropriate zoning authorization prior to the current owner's purchase. The property totals approximately 2,700 square feet. One unit contains three bedrooms and two bedrooms with approximately 2,025 square feet of living area, while the second unit contains two bedrooms and one bathroom for the remaining 675 square feet. Driveway has parking for four vehicles and is accessed from Court M and is behind the property. The city's adopted long range land use plan identifies this property as residential low district. Uses in this district include single family homes, schools, churches, and neighborhoods serving public uses. As far as the staff comments, the property owner shall obtain all necessary permits required for conversion from single family to a duplex. See, as far as on landscaping, there was no comments on this request. Also, no comments regarding stormwater from stormwater or the city's Department of Transportation. And the subject property is not located in the special flood hazard area. And this property is located within the Western Framework Plan area. The Green Acres Neighborhood Association met at its regularly scheduled meeting on May the 19th of this year and voted eight to zero to support this request. The Zoning Advisory Committee of the Birmingham Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, June 2nd, and voted to recommend approval, three yes, one no, of the rezoning request with the following Q conditions. Number one, only the following uses shall be permitted. Single-family detached dwelling and duplex dwelling. And also all required permits shall be obtained for the conversion of the dwelling from single family to a duplex. The applicant, well that concludes the staff report and the applicant is here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Sure. Okay. So I had a question for staff related to this and I KNOW THAT PLANNING STAFF IS HOLDING SOME PUBLIC WORKSHOPS RIGHT NOW ON ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND WHAT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY LOOK LIKE IN THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM IF WE WERE TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE. AND IN REVIEWING THIS CASE, THIS LOOKS LIKE A LOT LIKE AN INTERNAL ADU. So I wanted to see, you know, if staff had any comment on what public feedback has been received in the workshops that have been held, you know, regarding zone districts and where the public might be headed towards allowing ADUs in certain types of zone districts. Because if we had a ADU ordinance in place right now that allowed ADUs in D3 there wouldn't need to be a change in zoning for this property.

Listen, as of right now, yes, we have been, um, having, um, um, public town hall meetings just to get public feedback on ADUs. Um, right now there's nothing written at this point. We're just using this as an opportunity to hear from the public, to get their thoughts and feedback, um, on, on ADUs. Um, I see as far as this request, um, Like if you look at our zoning ordinance definition for a duplex dwelling, it just states a small one to two story, the detached structure that consists of two dwelling units arranged one beside or above the other, each with separate unit or main entry from the street. And this dwelling type has the appearance of a small to medium single unit house. So, I mean, it still meets the definition of a duplex, but I do hear what you're saying about ADUs.

Yeah, under the existing circumstances, this is the way to make it legal, basically.

Yeah, yeah.

Exactly. I was just curious. I know it's very early in the... CONVERSATION, PUBLIC CONVERSATION AROUND ADUs AND A POTENTIAL ORDINANCE. ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS OR QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YES, SIR. ASSUME YOU'RE THE APPLICANT, MR. AMIN? YEAH.

OKAY.

Don't know that we have any questions for you. It's pretty straightforward Are you Did you acquire the property after the renovation yes, so this was a foreclosure property that

There were several banks involved, so when I bought it, I didn't know that he didn't have it as a duplex. And I thought since there was nobody to answer any questions because there were so many banks involved. So when I bought it, I put it on both sides as a duplex and I rented out for at least a year. And then we ran into some problems with the power. So we went to the city to get the permit. And then we find out that this is not even supposed to be like that. So I wasn't aware of this subject. And then I guess this was my first or first few projects that I did with that kind of situation. So then I realized, and then I think the last meeting I was here, They told me that whenever you buy something like that, make sure you go to the city. If it's a foreclosure, then that way you know exactly what's wrong with the property and then go from there. But I did purchase like that, and then I All I've did is just painted, renovated some bathrooms, and nothing else. And from outside, it's going to stay the same. It's not going to change anything because it has two separate entrances anyway. So all I'm doing is just changing... you know, from D3 to D4 just to make it legal just in case in future if I have any problem, you know, getting a permit, I won't have to run into the same problem, you know.

Right, yeah. Yeah, and I would assume you have, you want to have each unit on separate meters, which is, yeah. Right, yeah, that's, yeah, exactly, yeah. Yeah, okay. All right. Motion to recommend to the full council for approval. All right. It's been motioned and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. That motion passes. Thank you. So this will go to the full council. And I'm sure staff can inform you what the timing on that's going to be. Okay. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. All right. So we'll go back to item number three, the southern area framework plan rezoning.

Again, this is Michael Ward, principal planner here at the city's planning, engineering and permits department. Yeah, so what you have before you is, let's see, an updated southern area rezoning proposal. So from the last meeting, you asked planning staff to provide some additional information on the 34 properties that were in question. And we provided that information to you all. So not only do we update the spreadsheet, but we also work with the city's urban design team to add the historic information to that spreadsheet for those 34 properties. And so I believe that it was brought up at the last meeting that I think we were asked were we willing to consider modifying the rezoning proposal for those properties that we knew for a fact were had a single family use and And so in the spirit of compromise, we were willing to do so. So if you look at your spreadsheet, you will see that there are 15 properties that are proposed to be rezoned to D3. I think one we already identified previously, but it's a total of 15 that's on that spreadsheet. And so that basically leaves 19 properties. And so those 19 properties have, you know, some have, you know, two units, you know, more. And so... And so one of the things that we try not to do, or at least we really don't advocate for at all, is to try to make uses legal nonconforming. And so we ask that as you consider this amended proposal that you would please keep that in mind, that we really do not try to encourage legal nonconforming uses in terms of for rezoning. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Well, thank you for providing this information. The table, it's extremely helpful to have all of this, especially appreciate the pictures and then all of the, you know, staff notes as well, very helpful. Counselors?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Ward. You know, as well, I want to thank the staff for putting together this chart. It is very helpful and very easy to sort of define what current zoning is for each of these sort of 34 properties that had been sort of on the table for consideration. And I also know that this process has taken, what, two years to come together in terms of conversations with neighborhood. I want to thank, you know, the zoning committee at Highland Park neighborhood for their work in tandem with PEP to get us where we are. So the last conversation we were at was sort of these 34 properties. And of these, I think where we left it is, you know, could staff review the current uses for these 34 properties and determine which ones are reasonable to down zone from a D4, D5 to a D3 And so I see that we have essentially cut in half those 34 properties. So we're down to 19 out of 615 properties in Highland Park that are sort of on the table for discussion. And so to take a step back, I know the concern that I'm hearing from residents in Highland Park in particular and throughout the district And I think throughout the city as a whole is that when someone buys a single family home, again, regardless of their location in the city, there's a fairly reasonable expectation that a certain level of stability would be there regarding the home that's right next door to me. If I buy a single family home, I would naturally expect that the homes around me would be if they are currently used for single-family homes, sort of stay in that position. So again, I want to thank the staff for the work in downsizing those properties from 34, the downsize of 15 of them, so there were 19 that are on the table. I guess the question I have is, are there any alternative approaches that could provide neighbors with sort of a confidence that the properties, these 19 properties, won't ultimately be developed into larger multiple unit complexes? Because I think that's the main concern.

Yes. Most of those properties, the 19, have current uses. And a lot of those homes are sound, occupied, And to tear down or try to tear down, first of all, these properties are within historic districts. A lot of these are contributing structures. And so, of course, there's a process associated with that. Also, to tear down some of these large homes, I mean, it would be a pretty significant cost. And everything really depends on, you know, like say like the lot size or whatnot. But you're talking about, but there's so many factors that go into that. So, I mean, you got to look at the Highland Park Overlay District. You got to look at you know, the height, you've got to look at setbacks. So it's just numerous factors. You've also got to look at the site itself. Some sites might be hilly. You probably can't fully develop a full site. So there's so many various conditions. And I also want to note that the zoning for those 19 properties, you know, have been in place for, at least, well almost 36 years because the last sector plan was done, um, and approved on July of 1990. So I think those properties that are currently in use, um, we're really just asking that there's a zoning that's in place for those properties to at least allow for the current uses on those sites to continue so that we're not creating a legal nonconforming situation on those properties.

Thank you. So I know the neighborhood had proposed some solutions in regards to zoning categories that would be new. For example, a D4A. I know previously there was an R4A and a D3H. I think the idea is that both of those would preserve the historic homes but still allow reasonable residential use. Can you speak to us about those proposals, those considerations?

You see, those proposals create a brand new zoning classification in our zoning ordinance. And trying to create new zoning districts is a whole other process within itself. So that could take, you know, months. And really, we're talking about, you know, 19 properties. So we don't think it's a... you know, a good idea to create a whole zoning district to accommodate 19 properties, you know, in one neighborhood. And so that's something that we do not advocate for or support.

So just to be clear, these type of zoning categories currently don't exist in our framework plans as is. and would not certainly with the new rezoning with all the framework plans.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, there's no, yeah, yeah, correct.

What's being proposed, yeah, yeah, does not exist. Okay. So as I was looking, thank you for that, as I was looking at these, at this chart, you know, there were six properties that I identified that are still single-family home usage properties. And I'll sort of call them out. One is item eight on the chart that PEP staff provided. It's 2974 Road Circle. So as I'm looking at it, I see it's a main house with single family. It does have an accessory dwelling unit in the rear, but its primary use is single family home. It's currently zoned D5. why could that property not be down zone to D three?

The reason is, is because if you look at that parcel is really two units, you have the single family home, which is one unit. You have an accessory dwelling unit, which is another unit. So it's really two units on that parcel. So to make that property, Well, to downzone it to D3 would create a legal non-conforming situation. And that's something that we really do not advocate for at all. So that's the reasoning why.

So are you saying the reason that it could not be downzoned from D5 to D3 is because that would mean that that property would be classified as legal non-conforming?

That is correct. And in D5 specifically, because it's a detached unit or, I mean, why the, I mean, we just talked about the other property that was going to D4. So what's the difference between D4 and D5 in this context?

In this context, D4 also allows for two units. D5 also allows for two units as well. So both zoning classifications do allow for at least two units.

Thank you. So to your point, downzoning that to D4 would allow it to still be legal and conforming?

Well, it would be legal, yes, and conforming, yes, correct.

All right. So putting a pin on that that that is one that I might recommend be down zone from d5 to d4 Since that would still allow it to be conforming and legal Number at 9 10 and 11 are sort of in the same category I see those as based on the notes the current uses are a single-family home with an ADU in the rear and detached and So for those units as well, numbers 8, 9, 10, and 11, and that is 2974 Road Circle, 2956 Road Circle, 2944 Road Circle, and 2834 Highland Avenue. Could we... My recommendation would be for those to be down zone to D4. And I see that number 11 is already D4. Yeah, correct. All right, so that's 8, 9, 10, and 11.

On 9, in the notes it says that I guess the main structure is being used as a business. Yes.

Yes, that's one of those, that's a carryover that's, yeah, that appears to be legal non-conform.

Yeah, that's been there a long time. So can you have a registered business of that type in a dwelling district? Yeah, if it's legal non-conforming, then yes. Okay, but to make it legal conforming, what zoning would be appropriate?

Yeah, it would be a zoning classification that would allow for office use. And so it's... Yeah, so it's several, C2, C1, all of our mixed-use districts allow for office. So it's various zoning classifications. What about a home office? Yeah, I think in this case, it looks like that this law office is kind of like the primary use. So, I mean, you can have a home office. But I think in this case, this looks like this is, the law office is the primary use as opposed to single family home being a primary use with a section of your property being allowed to be used for home occupation.

But our finance department wouldn't issue a business license to an entity that was based in a zone district that didn't allow for that type of business. Is that correct?

Yeah, that's my understanding, unless it's in certain situations where you do have some legal non-conforming type uses.

So somehow or another it's classified as legal non-conforming and they would be allowed to issue a business license?

I think when business license applications come in, they also check with zoning. And so we verify whether or not properties are legal nonconforming or if the zoning just straight up allows it. So it's part of the process.

I guess there's some history back there because at some point, I would assume this went from a residence to a business property.

And in any case, that's an interesting one for sure. It is. I had another question. I see that there's a column that says Highland Park overlay. Can you speak to the FSD2, please?

Yes, we have what's called, well, the Highland Park neighborhood has a Highland Park overlay district. And so that actually provides, um, you know, further, um, well, it's an overlay that, um, factors in, you know, what, what it looked like to form and, you know, development, um, you know, in that Highland Park neighborhood, since most of Highland Park is already developed, um, we do have different Highland Park overlay categories that provides the type of building that would be allowed the maximum height, setbacks, and things of that nature. So that's something that's also considered. And so that's basically how that overlay operates.

Thank you. So I hear you saying that that is sort of a benefit in that it offers some protection in terms of an overlay because it is historic in nature.

Well, that's part of it, but it's really more so just making sure that development just kind of conforms to what we want. For the very few properties in Highland Park where you do have maybe a vacant lot, we at least want whatever is built back to at least conform and look like similar structures within the neighborhood. All right, thank you.

The next item is number 22. That address is 1109 38th Street South. I point that one out because that is an interesting one. That is a single family, according to current use, with an internal ADU. So the notes I'm seeing is that it seems to have a basement capability. The way I read that is that someone finished their basement and it can no longer be considered a single family home. Could you walk me through that?

like you said, number 22, sir. Yeah. Let's see. Yeah. This property, um, says here, yeah, it seems they have a basement, um, ADU. And so, and I think on the, um, even like the 1990 existing land use for this property, this property was considered a duplex. So, you know, based on that information, then, yeah, that's a property that, I mean, we're already, the proposed zone, well, it's currently zone R4A, and the proposed zoning is D4. So that D4 would, of course, allow for not only a single family, along with the ADU use.

Gotcha. And just so I understand, let's say I choose to finish my basement out, how would that be different than what this one individual seems to have done if I use it for... My daughter comes back from college and she decides to live in it for the summer. How is that different from what this is? It seems like this would be more... aligned with a D3 since it's a single family and there's no detached unit on the property?

Looking at this property, the existing use was a duplex, so I don't know if there is maybe a round back. It could be separate meters, a separate entrance way that would allow you into that basement area. So, but based on the information that we have, you know, in front of you, along with the fact that it's R4A, we at least want to accommodate, you know, that use.

Thank you for that. I mean, of course, welcome comments from my colleagues. And that's one that seems like it would fit very nicely within D3. AGAIN, SINCE THE ADU IS JUST THE BASEMENT, IS IT BEING CONSIDERED AS THE ADU USE? I AGREE. SO MY RECOMMENDATION THERE WOULD BE FOR THAT ONE TO MOVE TO D3. THAT'S ITEM 22. AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS ITEM NUMBER 34. THAT IS A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED WITH TWO UNITS. AS I'M LOOKING AT THIS, I'M SEEING THAT IT'S ALREADY ZONED D4. AND THAT HAS TWO ADU UNITS. OKAY. SO I WOULD, I GUESS, TO MY COMMITTEE COLLEAGUES, MY RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE MOVING ITEMS 8, 9, 10, AND 11. and those four to D4, and then item 22 to D3. So I guess... I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS PLAN AS IS WITH THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.

NEW SPEAKER ONE QUESTION BEFORE WE GET TO THAT. ITEM 23, THIS IS THE SUSPECTED ILLEGAL EVENT CENTER OR MAYBE EVEN CONFIRMED ILLEGAL EVENT CENTER. OK, it says the 1990 existing land use was a duplex. So I guess that's the only information that we have about how it's set up internally. So D4 looks appropriate. All right. Okay, so I'm going to second your motion.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt.

No problem.

But, yeah, I just want to make sure, because I know the thing at the last meeting, we kind of went over, you know, the queue conditions, and I just want to make sure that do we need to, you know, do this again, or are you okay with that? Okay.

Yeah, let's do it again.

Okay, all right. Yeah. Yeah, let's see, let's see, but we need to, let's see, we don't have enough copies, so we just need to make sure, and I do apologize for that oversight. Sure.

That would be carrying the existing queue conditions over. Is that right?

Yes. Yeah, so we at least want to at least just kind of make sure that you're aware of those cues and that we're just kind of carrying them over. And so I just wanted to make sure that, you know, full transparency that you're aware that that's also a part of the approval process. So we just wanted to make sure you had, you know, copies of that information as well.

Thank you. And that was very relevant for the last framework plan that we passed as well as the amending of the continuation of those cues as well.

Yeah, so we're trying to basically avoid a situation, you know, like last time where we just wanted to make sure that, you know, you have those cues in front of you and that you're okay with it before you approve.

Yeah, my only question would be that, you know, in one of our previous framework rezonings, we had properties that, you know, the structure had been cleared off of, and so it was no longer being used for that purpose, and so... if I'm remembering correctly, we actually renewed some Q conditions for properties that were kind of in that circumstance. But I assume that none of the ones that you're, we're considering today fall in that category.

Is that right? That's correct. Those are the ones that we're proposing to continue to be carry over. Like in the, like one of the things that we did when we did review Q conditions, like, Some of the queue conditions may have said, you know, just need site plan approval. And so we already, you know, do that as part of our process. So on those cases, you know, we remove the queues. But in this case, the ones that we're proposing are the ones that we want to continue and carry over into the new zoning proposal.

Got you.

All right. All right. Yeah, so I apologize for the delay, but we're going to get those copies to you as soon as possible.

I was just going to mention, while we're waiting, on the previous case, we're talking about queue conditions. You guys moved to recommend the previous zoning case, but we didn't add the queue conditions. So we might want to reopen that one and approve with the queue conditions, if we could. Thank you.

We'll come back to that. Appreciate you pointing that out. So I assume somebody on that side is keeping notes of our recommendations, but happy to go back over that again if needed. But while we got time, so in our chart of all the properties, Number 8, 2974 is being recommended as D4. Is that right? D4, yeah. Number 9, 2956 Road Circle is being recommended as D4. Number 10, 2944 Road Circle, D4. Number 11, 2834 Highland Avenue. D4, as has been proposed. And then number 22, 1109, 30th Street South. That one's being recommended as D3. And is there another one? Yeah, that's it.

Okay. There's actually one other that's item number 29, just to stay consistent. Um, that is a duplex that could also single family duplex that could move from D five to D four. Okay. And that's 1063 24th Street South.

So we'll include that one on your motion. I'll second the motion. We need a second to look over these queue conditions. Just a question on the proposed zoning column. It has like QC2 asterisk and then a number. What's that designation mean? I mean, I get the QC2 or QD3 or QD5 part of it. I'm wondering what the asterisk and the number means.

Oh, that's to identify it on the map itself. So, yeah, so that's kind of an identifier to kind of help identify it on the map. So in case you may have, like, say, for instance, a couple of QC2s on the map, it just kind of helps better orient everyone to kind of let you know which address is for which one.

Yeah, I got it now. I understand. Appreciate that. All right. Okay, so we had an opportunity to scan through those. We've got a motion and a second.

Before you vote, can we revisit number 22? 1109 30th Street South. Yeah, I just want to remind everyone that, I mean, that's an ADU, you know, on that property. And so downzoning it to D3 will make it legal nonconforming. And that's, again, that's something that, you know, we don't, you know, advocate for. So, yeah. So we respectfully ask that you please reconsider putting that back to at least D4 so that that use could be a legal allowed use, or at least continue to be a legal allowed use because it's currently R4A.

I mean, just to be completely transparent, I'm hopeful that we can make it legal as a D3. That would be my aspiration. And I think it's staff's intent that the ADU ordinance could be part of our zoning code before the end of the year. And I'm hopeful that that can happen too. Understand what what what you're saying? Yeah, I'm also Forecasting Yeah Yeah, but we really got to be sir, so Really?

Yeah, I was gonna ask about the adu determination I guess How did how do we determine that? Just kind of looking at the notice it seems to Looking at this, I don't have my Google or my laptop to look at that, but it looks like there was a structure on that property that's no longer there. So that might have been the duplex designation. This is the one that has the basement ADU. Yeah, but I'm saying in terms of because it also had a 1990 existing land use as a duplex. But yeah, my question was around the determination that it was an ADU.

Hey, Justin McCluskey, senior planner for the city of Birmingham. So this was one of the sites that I went out to determine the use for. It used to have a picture on here in the earlier photos that we had sent you, but it does have two air conditioning units. It had a separate back door on the lower level that made us believe that it's being used as an ADU. But that was just in our site visit when we went out. It is a basement ADU.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think two units. I would have some concern. But yeah, I would be interested in how those determinations get made. I think for a separate structure, it's a little easier for a basement. I think that's a little more difficult, but just making sure that there's a good degree of confidence in that determination.

Certainly. We can generally determine when we're going out on a site visit if it's going to be used as a separate unit or not when it is a separate building, like you stated. But then when it's inside the house, like for this example, we can't necessarily make an exact determination, but we can make the determination that we aren't certain it's single family use. And to risk the fact that it would be legal nonconforming is a risk that we were not willing to take in this scenario, which is why we describe it as having an ADU usage, because we can't prove that it doesn't. Now, as to whether the fact that two meters and two AC units would prove that it is an ADU, can't go that far, but I can tell you that those two things, yes.

So you observed two meters on the house?

For this property, I believe so. It did have a photo on there. Looking at it now, it doesn't. I don't know if I took it off at some point, but... Let me make sure real quick. Yes, yes, yeah. Yeah, and then as well, during the 1990s existing land use, it was confirmed to have a duplex, and that's from the old documents from the city archives. So we know that it at least at one time was a duplex, and then it has the capabilities to be one.

And again, the reason that we're kind of struggling with this is that the Highland Park neighborhood specifically requested that where possible, properties be downzoned. I mean, well, they wanted all of these downzoned, right? But we're compromising here, right? Correct.

THERE'S ONE OTHER ITEM I'D LIKE TO ADD AS A RECOMMENDATION OR ADD TO THE MOTION AND THAT IS ITEM 25 IS 3515 CLIFF ROAD. AND I'M ADDING THAT TO THE MOTION SINCE IT COMPLIES WITH THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS OF A MOVE FROM D5 TO D4 AS A DUPLEX. The item 25. 25. 3515 Cliff Road. And your recommendation is to move from D5, which can allow multi-unit, multi-multi-unit apartment to D4. D4, okay. So to review the recommendations, items 8, 9, and 10. DOWNZONE TO D4. ITEM 22, DOWNZONE TO D3. ITEM 25, DOWNZONE TO D4. AND LASTLY, ITEM 29, DOWNZONE TO D4. THAT'S SIX PROPERTIES.

And again, to repeat, number 22, to try to downzone that property to D3 will make that property legal nonconforming.

I appreciate that recommendation. I do struggle with that one as well since that is an internal basement use of the single family home. So I'll make a motion on those items.

Okay. Second. All right. Motion to second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. So that... framework plan rezoning will move forward with those amendments to the full council and along with the continuation of the existing queue conditions. We need to go back and reconsider the zoning case ZAC 2026 EIGHT THOUSAND. SO MOTION TO RECONSIDER. ALL RIGHT. AND SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL RIGHT. SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECOMMENDED Q CONDITIONS. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR D3 to D4 with the Q conditions that were recommended. Second. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. So that passes. Okay. Item number five, we have update on appointments, reappointments. So we first up, we need to revisit our recommendations to the Birmingham Planning Commission's one of the individuals that we Recommended is a city of is disqualified as a city employee so In their place we would like to recommend Lisa Daniels Williams, yeah, Williams, I'm sorry. Daniels on, all right. Got it. Okay. All right, been motioned and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. All right, so next up we have Zoning Board of Adjustment. We have two vacancies and one candidate. Is that right? Am I making that up? Okay. Anyway, we have... ITEM B IS ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. OKAY. WE HANDLED THAT ONE ALREADY, RIGHT? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. AND SO WE'LL DISPENSE WITH THAT ONE. ITEM C IS DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS. Actually, four terms that are expiring. All four of those individuals would like to be reappointed. And then there's one vacancy due to that individual becoming a city employee. Okay.

It's just a vacancy for a Birmingham resident.

Right, and that is specifically for a member at large. So, or otherwise a Birmingham resident. Okay. Yeah, that's what I was looking for. Okay. So, let me just... I'm looking for the four that are whose terms are expiring. Okay. Got it. Got it. All right. So we're, um, we'd like to recommend the reappointment of Abra Barnes, whose current term expires July 30th, 2026. And the new, um, term expiration date will be July 30th of 2029. And that applies to the next three as well. Ivan Holloway, resident member at large, Cindy Coyle, a registered architect, and Brian Wolf, a BUILDING TRADE PRACTITIONER. SO ALL OF THEIR TERMS EXPIRE JULY 30TH OF THIS YEAR, AND IF REAPPOINTED, THEIR TERMS WOULD EXPIRE JULY 30TH OF 2029. AND THERE'S ONE OTHER VACANCY THAT'S CREATED BY GINA MALISHAM. who's no longer qualified because she's became a city employee. That term also expires on July 30th of next year. So we'll need to consider filling that vacancy for a resident member at large for the balance of the term. All right. Yeah. Yeah. Second. Yeah. Motion to reappoint the four individuals named. Councilor Vassa seconds. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. So those will move forward. And I think that brings us to the end. So if there's no new or old business, we'll consider a motion to adjourn. Oh, yes, we need to go back and thank you for remembering. We have the minutes of the June 9th meeting. If there's no additions or corrections, we'll make a motion to approve those.

Second.

All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. All right. That should be everything. Motion to adjourn. Second. All right. All in favor say aye.