What Council was set to consider (Items 9–12)

• Item 9: A public hearing and ordinance for a zoning change plus a Specific Use Permit (SPU) for a “Veterinary Clinic—Large Animals” tied to LCAD 13152 (legal description listed on the agenda).
• Item 10: A resolution approving a Development Agreement tied to Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) No. 2 (Forestbrook Boulevard).
• Item 11: A resolution for residential tax abatement and an economic development agreement tied to the “5 in 5 Housing Infill Redevelopment Program” for specific Washington Heights Addition lots.
• Item 12: An ordinance amending Chapter 12.05 of the city code covering fats, oils, and greases (FOG), grease interceptors, oil/water separators, sand/oil separators, and related pretreatment requirements.

Item 9: Zoning change + SPU for a large-animal veterinary clinic

Item 9 is the zoning item neighbors usually track most closely, because it’s a formal public-hearing step tied to a specific proposed use. The agenda describes a petition from James O’Bryan, DVM to change zoning from SF-2 (Single-Family Dwelling) to GR (General Retail) and to add an SPU for a “Veterinary Clinic—Large Animals.”

The parcel is identified as LCAD 13152, with the agenda’s listed legal description: Mayer Addition, Block 8, Lots 1 & 2, 3147 Bonham St.

So what for residents? Even when an SPU is paired with a broader zoning district, an SPU is where the city typically centers conditions and site-specific oversight. If you live nearby—or if you manage property planning matters—this is the item where public comments and the record created at the hearing can matter for what conditions get attached.

Item 10: TIRZ development agreement (Forestbrook Boulevard)

Item 10 schedules action on a resolution approving a Development Agreement with Lone Star Planned Developments, LLC related to City of Paris TIRZ No. 2 (Forestbrook Boulevard).

So what for taxpayers and nearby property owners? TIRZ arrangements are designed to redirect certain tax increments toward targeted redevelopment. The agenda item confirms the deal is on the table; to understand the real financial and public-improvement implications, readers typically need the adopted resolution and the development agreement language after the meeting.

Item 11: Residential tax abatement tied to Washington Heights infill lots

Item 11 would consider a resolution approving a residential tax abatement and an economic development agreement with R4U Ventures, LLC as part of the “5 in 5 Housing Infill Redevelopment Program for Washington Heights Addition.”

The agenda ties the agreement to Lot 2, Block 4 (E. Garrett St) and Lot 13, Block 72-A (606 E. Grove St.).

So what for renters/homeowners? Tax abatement programs can affect project timelines, financing, and costs—especially for infill development. If you’re watching neighborhood change, the program name is only the start; the practical impact depends on what the adopted agreement requires at those addresses.

Item 12: FOG/pretreatment code amendments—who may be affected

Item 12 schedules an ordinance amending Chapter 12.05 to address fats, oils, and greases (FOG) and related wastewater controls, including grease interceptors, oil/water separators, and sand/oil separators, along with associated pretreatment requirements.

As background, Chapter 12.05’s wastewater disposal and discharge rules include restrictions intended to prevent grease/fat/oil and other obstruction-causing materials from interfering with sewer operation. The code also lays out that, when users discharge grease/oil/waste containing grease in amounts that would impede flows or violate limitations, the user must provide city-approved interceptors or traps with specified performance/maintenance features—and keep records related to cleaning/maintenance.

So what for local businesses? Food-serving businesses (and other facilities that handle grease) are often the most directly affected. If the city adopts updated text after the agenda review, the operational details—what equipment is required, how it must be maintained, and what the compliance expectations are—are the key questions to check in the final adopted ordinance.

After July 13: where to look for the final “what changed”

This agenda shows what Council was scheduled to take up, not what was ultimately adopted. To confirm the real effect on zoning, incentives, and utility rules, check for the post-meeting adopted ordinance(s) and resolution(s), including any effective dates and compliance timeline language—especially for the Chapter 12.05 FOG changes.

Sources

• City of Paris, TX — Amended City Council Agenda (PDF), July 13, 2026
• eCode360 — City of Paris, TX Code Chapter 12.05 Modification of federal pretreatment standards (interceptors/traps requirements)

Hybrid meeting details: how to watch and participate

The CPC meeting starts at 1:30 p.m. and will be held in-person at Room 301-A, City Hall (200 E. Wells St., 3rd Floor). The City also says the meeting is virtual via GoToWebinar, but you must register in advance to join remotely.

To submit written input, the CPC says: submit comments via email no later than 24 hours prior to the meeting.

If you want to speak during the public testimony period remotely, the CPC instructs attendees to use GoToWebinar’s “raise your hand” feature so staff can unmute you.

What’s on the docket: Midtown Center near Hope Avenue

The July 20 agenda includes two Midtown Center items tied to the former Walmart building at 5825 W. Hope Ave:

• File 260029: A request for a deviation from Midtown Center Development Incentive Zone (DIZ) Overlay performance standards to allow an indoor self-storage facility and (as originally described) a data processing/computer services/computational research facility as permitted uses within a portion of the building.
• File 260030: A resolution approving changes to the site and the existing building previously occupied by Walmart at 5825 W. Hope Ave, relative to the Midtown Center DIZ overlay.

What changed in the applicant’s updated Midtown Center materials (dated 7/1/2026)

In a “PLEASE NOTE” section for items 4 & 5, the agenda packet states that the applicant submitted updated narrative and exhibits dated 7/1/2026 for City Plan Commission consideration. That note says the updated materials:

• Remove the data processing/computer services/computational research facility use from the proposal; and
• Limit the deviation request to self-service storage use within the rear portion of the building.

The agenda also says a Proposed Substitute A for item 4 will be considered to reflect this narrowed request.

Because these are agenda items for public hearing and consideration, they are not final approvals just because they appear on Monday’s docket.

Separate zoning item: Bader Philanthropies substitute ordinance (File 252189)

A separate CPC public hearing item on the docket is File 252189, a substitute ordinance relating to a zoning change to Detailed Planned Development (DPD) and the 1st Amendment to the DPD known as Bader Philanthropies.

The agenda describes this item as adding subject sites at 410 W. Concordia Ave and 3301 and 3307 N. Vel R. Phillips Ave to the DPD that currently includes 3300 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. This item is listed as part of the Zoning – Public Hearing 1:35 p.m. segment.

What residents and nearby businesses may want to listen for

If you live or run a business near Midtown Center—especially around 5825 W. Hope Ave—the key detail to watch is that the agenda packet explicitly flags an updated 7/1/2026 submission that removes the data-processing/computational research use and narrows the deviation to self-service storage in the rear portion of the building. Those are the points most likely to come up in public testimony and questions during the hearing.

Sources

• CPC meeting logistics (hybrid + public input rules)

PCPC’s agenda also says applicants and the public can send written comments by noon on the day of the meeting to planning@phila.gov.

What PCPC is reviewing on the Wissahickon overlay

PCPC’s docket lists an Action Item: “Request for Excess Impervious Coverage under the Wissahickon Watershed Overlay (/WWO) at 29-31 W Bells Mill Road” (presented by Nina Solomonic). Because the agenda frames this as an action item, the key reader takeaway is to watch for what PCPC decides after it reviews the request.

Quick explainer: impervious coverage and the /WWO

In Philadelphia’s Wissahickon Watershed Overlay framework, the city limits how much impervious surface a development can add. Impervious ground cover is generally the kind of hard surface that does not soak up rainfall where it falls (for example, roofs and pavement).

Under the Philadelphia Code’s /WWO impervious coverage rules, land areas are placed into categories with limits (including 20%, 27%, 35%, and 45% depending on category). The code also provides a path for additional impervious coverage beyond the basic category limits, but only if the Commission permits it after review and comment by the Water Department and other appropriate City agencies and if criteria are met.

Those criteria include, among other requirements, that stormwater leaving the property is substantially similar in effect to what it would be under the basic impervious limit, and that stormwater countermeasures shall not require excessive or significant maintenance.

Where Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) fits

Stormwater review in Philadelphia isn’t handled by PCPC alone. PWD explains that its approvals are often prerequisites for other parts of the development-permitting process (including post-construction stormwater plan approval). PWD also notes that for projects inside the /WWO, PWD and PCPC work directly with each other to administer the Wissahickon Watershed Overlay.

Importantly for residents following along on this docket: PWD’s guidance says that if a project is in the WWO, the applicant is advised to meet with PCPC before submitting its Existing Resources and Site Analysis (ERSA) application, and that PCPC may restrict new impervious cover or impose additional stormwater management requirements beyond PWD’s general stormwater regulations.

Data centers: an “information-only” agenda item

PCPC’s agenda also includes an Information Only item: “Data Centers Issue Brief” (presented by Amy Boyd).

Because it is labeled information-only, residents should treat it as a review/briefing rather than a final adoption of policy at this meeting. The practical thing to watch next is whether PCPC schedules follow-up work that could connect to later planning, stormwater, or development-review decisions.

What residents can do before (and during) the meeting

• Submit written comments by noon on July 16 to planning@phila.gov, as the agenda instructions indicate.
• If you’re in or near the /WWO area, treat impervious limits as a real design constraint—requests for “excess” impervious coverage are reviewed against specific criteria.
• If data centers are a local concern, pay attention to whether PCPC connects the issue brief to later agenda items.

Sources

• Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) — July 16, 2026 agenda (PDF)
• Philadelphia Water Department — PWD’s role in Philadelphia’s development process (stormwater review manual)
• Philadelphia Code (AmLegal) — Wissahickon Watershed Overlay (/WWO) impervious coverage framework

The hearing is set for the Winamac Utilities Complex, Town Council Meeting Room, 623 W 11th Street, Winamac, IN 46996.

Two separate 12-month moratorium proposals

According to the published notice, the hearing will consider:

• A 12-month moratorium on commercial solar energy systems
• A separate 12-month moratorium on battery energy storage systems

The notice says both proposals would apply within all zoning districts within the jurisdiction of the Winamac Plan Commission.

Where to review the proposed ordinance text

Copies of the proposed ordinances are described in the notice as being on file for examination at Winamac Town Hall, in the office of the Clerk-Treasurer, 120 W. Main Street, Winamac, IN 46996, during regular business hours.

How to comment

The notice describes two ways to participate:

• Written objections: can be filed through Winamac Town Hall anytime prior to the hearing, and will be considered by the Plan Commission.
• Oral comments: will be heard during the proceeding at the hearing.

What happens right after the hearing

At a special meeting held immediately following the public hearing on July 9, the Plan Commission may vote on its recommendation to the Winamac Town Council on whether to adopt or reject the proposed ordinances.

ADA accommodation

The notice says ADA accommodations can be arranged by contacting Brad Zellers (Town Manager) at least 48 hours in advance.

Sources

• Pulaski County Journal public notice 103-26 (Winamac Plan Commission)
• Indiana Gateway: Town of Winamac — Other Boards (Winamac Plan Commission background)

If you live or work near the parcels listed on the agenda—such as 1425/1475 Ellsworth Industrial Boulevard NW, 1200 White Street SW, and 1151 Arlington Avenue SW—the proposed zoning language and any staff-recommended deferrals are worth reviewing before the hearing.

Hearing logistics: time, location, and how to add documents to the record

Zoning Review Board public hearings are held in City Council Chambers at 55 Trinity Avenue. For the July 9 meeting, briefing starts at 5:00 p.m. and the public hearing begins at 6:00 p.m. Members of the public may attend the briefing, but they may not participate or present during that time.

To help ensure your materials are included in the official record, the City allows residents to email documents by submitting to zrb-hearings@atlantaga.gov by 2:00 p.m. the day before the public hearing.

After each hearing, the City updates the ZRB agenda to show the action taken by the Board. That’s the place to check for the final outcome after July 9.

Beltline overlay rezonings on the July 9 docket (addresses to match)

The July 9 agenda includes three Beltline-overlay rezonings that target different zoning districts while keeping a Beltline overlay component tied to each site:

• Z-26-33 (1425 & 1475 Ellsworth Industrial Boulevard NW): Staff recommends approval. The request would rezone from I-2/BL/UPWO and MR-2-C/BL/UPWO to MRC-3/BL/UPWO for the two Ellsworth parcels.
• Z-26-34 (1200 White Street SW): Staff recommends a 90-day deferral to October 2026. The request would rezone from I-MIX/BL to MRC-3/BL for the White Street parcel.
• Z-26-35 (1151 Arlington Avenue SW; Oakland City Historic District/Beltline Overlay): Staff recommends a 30-day deferral to August 2026. The request would rezone from R-4A/HD20M/BL to R-5/HD20M/BL.

What to watch: For any of these cases, compare the proposed zoning language in the agenda with the staff recommendation shown in the staff packet—especially where staff is asking to carry the case forward via a deferral.

Other land-use items: digital billboards and a place-of-worship special use

• Digital changing billboard request — Z-26-32 (501 Cleveland Circle SW): This item would authorize construction of two digital changing billboard faces at 501 Cleveland Circle SW. In the staff packet, the City’s Office of Zoning & Development recommends denial.
• Place of worship special use — U-26-09 (1775 Buckeye Street SW): This case asks for a special use permit for a place of worship at 1775 Buckeye Street SW. The staff packet notes the applicant requested a deferral, and that staff is supportive, with a 30-day deferral recommended to August 2026.

What to watch: With special-use items, timing can move slower when deferrals are involved. Even if staff is supportive, the Board’s action is what matters.

Deferred vs. new: what the July 9 agenda shows for Z-26-06 in Adair Park

One of the “deferred cases” listed for July 9 is Z-26-06, which would amend the SPI-21 Historic West End/Adair Park regulations to provide an exception to a spacing requirement within Subarea 9 (Adair Park Live/Work) of SPI-21.

The key reader takeaway here is the label: because Z-26-06 appears under “Deferred Cases” on the July 9 agenda, it is being carried forward from a prior process step rather than introduced as a brand-new item.

What happens next after July 9

The Zoning Review Board considers rezonings and special use permits and, for rezonings, makes recommendations on rezonings to the Zoning Committee of the Atlanta City Council. After the July 9 hearing, the City’s ZRB materials will reflect the action taken by the Board, and the updated record is where residents should confirm whether cases were approved, deferred, or otherwise handled differently than staff suggested.

Sources

• City of Atlanta — Zoning Review Board (ZRB) public hearing schedule, rules, and how to submit to the record

The repeal removed the old ban—but “how it works” is still being built

According to the Star Tribune, the City Council passed two technical amendments that effectively repealed the ban and regulate adult bathhouses under the city’s adult entertainment framework. One change moves definitions and related standards into the city’s “Places of Adult Entertainment” code structure, and the other amends code provisions around venereal diseases and high-risk sexual conduct to allow sex between consenting adults in bathhouses.

The vote tally, as reported by the Star Tribune: nine council members voted yes, two opposed the measures, one abstained, and one member was absent.

Still, the council’s repeal doesn’t automatically mean anyone can open right away. The measure also has to clear the next procedural step noted by Star Tribune—Mayor Jacob Frey said he will sign it—after which the city would have to set up the remaining regulatory details, including zoning and public-health code requirements, that govern whether and how adult bathhouses could operate.

The ordinance package covers multiple Minneapolis code areas

This wasn’t handled through a single change. The Minneapolis legislative materials describe an ordinance package meant to update several different code “buckets” so the city can regulate adult bathhouses/sex venues consistently across:

• Licensing and business regulations (Title 13), including adding a new Chapter 270 for “Adult Sex Venues,” alongside related adult-entertainment updates.
• Zoning (Title 20), including updates across use regulations, development standards, and definitions tied to sexually oriented uses and the new adult-sex-venue framework.
• Health and sanitation (Title 11), including changes in provisions related to venereal diseases and high-risk sexual conduct.
• Miscellaneous offenses (Title 15), including exceptions for licensed establishments where sexual activity between consenting adults may be facilitated.

For residents, the practical point is that the “repeal” and the “operating rules” are different timelines. The regulatory parts still have to be finalized and implemented in a way that works for real applications, review processes, and enforcement.

What’s next—and what residents should watch for

Star Tribune framed the June 25 vote as the first step, with additional changes needed—especially in zoning and public-health rules—before adult bathhouses can open. That means the uncertainty for neighbors, commuters, and anyone who might be an applicant isn’t whether the ban is gone (it is, via the City Council action), but what the city’s finalized location standards, licensing categories, inspection/health compliance expectations, and application workflows end up looking like.

Where to follow the next milestones

If you want to track updates as the city turns the repeal into enforceable rules, start with:

• Minneapolis LIMS (the city’s legislative tracking system), where ordinance documents and City Council actions are recorded.
• City of Minneapolis adult entertainment licensing context, which lays out how adult entertainment licensing is structured (including how application types are handled based on whether alcohol is involved) and directs people to Business Licenses for submissions.

Bottom line: Minneapolis repealed the ban, but the real “when can operations start?” question hinges on how quickly the city finalizes and operationalizes zoning and health/sanitation requirements, and how those rules translate into licensing reviews and inspections.

Sources

• MPR News — Minneapolis City Council votes to repeal ban on adult bathhouses, sex venues (June 25, 2026)
• Minneapolis Star Tribune — Repeal passes city council; details on the ordinance package and remaining implementation issues (June 25, 2026)
• Minneapolis LIMS — Committee of the Whole Report (Apr. 7, 2026): Adult bathhouses and sex venues ordinance package (file numbers and code areas)
• Minneapolis LIMS — City Council Agenda (Mar. 5, 2026): Notice of ordinance introductions enabling the later repeal vote
• City of Minneapolis — Adult business licensing context (where adult-use licensing sits in the broader business-license structure)