Application for a special exception that ties in that we'll have to consider.

Um stated we've already looked at this in the past, so there are some factors that may have changed or information that was provided that may help in you in your uh rendering a decision.

All right, so I would say this concludes our public hearing regarding the application for special exception.

We did have comments that were submitted that we have as part of our packets.

We haven't reviewed those.

I would recommend you do so.

And with that, uh Chair entertain a motion is made.

I do want to point out that Andreas Duani did write the code and did allow the option for a drive-thru in this area.

The form-based code is just that in the form of the approval or disapproval of the drive-through.

At the last meeting, we did not see the structure that was being uh contemplated, and I think the height and scale of the property, the location of the drive-thru do make it uh important in review of this, and versus a one-story fast food restaurant, even a one-story bank set off the street.

I think the form and scale of the building is a very important uh part of this application uh to decide on the drive-thru.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments of the board?

All right, Chair entertain a motion.

Uh these are sometimes difficult.

We have to really think through all the discussion and comments, and we appreciate your time today.

Um sometimes I have to pull a motion out of everyone, but I I tend to vote last just so that I don't influence the vote.

So I would ask the members of this board consider everyone's time and someone take the time to make a motion.

Okay, I'll proceed to make the motion.

Uh but I want to specify um with staff, uh, I'm gonna make a motion to approve and tie it to the design rendering received mandating the three-story structure, the height described on the design, the masonry um construction, and the exact uh site layout uh as the design shows.

With that, I'll make the motion to approve.

Okay, I have a motion to approve with those conditions.

Do I have a second?

How second?

I have a second.

Any further discussion?

All right, with that, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Okay.

The motion carries special exceptions approved.

All right, we'll go to the next aspect of this location, which is 6703-6653 regarding 250 St.

Louis Street.

Mr.

Pipes, name and address for the record.

Yeah, Casey Pipes, 150 government street.

This uh second aspect is related to a uh what the staff calls a curb cut variance.

The staff report says that a curb cut onto St.

Louis Street is not allowed and that a variance is required.

This is the curb cut to be the exit flow of the drive-through shown on the site plan.

That that curb cut currently exists.

There's a curb cut there today, allowing access in and out of the surface parking lot from St.

Louis Street.

There's also access into the parking lot from the North Joe Ackham Street side.

But what and so we've applied for the variants to allow this this curb cut to remain on St.

Louis Street.

The actual regulation uh curb cuts on both streets, if you're on a corner, aren't prohibited by the downtown development district code or the UDC or anything else.

There is a prohibition in the appendix that says parking shall be accessed from secondary frontage where available.

That's a quote from the appendix.

And what you can see on the site plan is that the parking for this facility is accessed from the secondary frontage.

So like we are accessing design we've proposed.

If anything, allowing this development and this design removes the situation you currently have where access to the parking lot is accessed off of St.

Louis Street or is at least accessible from St.

Louis Street.

So the staff wanted a variance application for the curb cut, so we've applied for it.

This is an exit only uh to St.

Louis Street, the A Street.

Uh, people are not going to turn into St.

Louis it turn into the drive-thru and go backwards off of St.

Louis Street to get into the bank or to get it to the parking lot.

We think this is also necessary to the design.

We were trying to put the building at the corner, right up next to the sidewalk, not have parking in front of the building, not have driveways cutting around the building and circling it and separating it from the street.

So this design that has the traffic coming around the back of the building and out the side is necessary to locate the building where we are proposing to have it located on the lot.

And again, we think this is satisfies the uh map for Mobile Corps Principles 3, 5, and 6 for strategic infill, uh high quality design and strong downtown.

We don't believe this curb cut on the St.

Louis, which is essentially to allow a current curb cut to remain.

It's not contrary to the public interest, and it would pose an unnecessary hardship to us if we were forced to get rid of that curb cut because it would essentially make us put the building more in the middle of the lot and circle the building with the drive-thru to come in and out on Joe Ackham Street, which would be result in a poorer design and a poorer uh uh walkability component by putting the drive-through the driveway around the building and putting the building in the middle of the lot.

We think the spirit of the UDC is observed, substantial justice is being done.

I'm not even 100% sure we need this variance based on my reading of the appendix that that has this requirement that you don't access the parking from a primary street, but we've applied for it.

We're gonna be here anyway, and we're happy to secure the variants again.

It's just to allow the exiting traffic to uh to leave St.

Louis Street, and if you want to make a requirement that our people that are parking at the parking lot enter and exit on Joe Ackham Street, that's fine with us.

We view this as the drive-through exit lane, not the parking entrance or parking exit for the customers that walk in or for the employees that uh that work at that facility.

Okay.

Any questions for Mr.

Popes?

Uh I have a question.

I I do think reducing the width of the curb cut to a one-way 12 foot would be more in line with the area and reduce some of the neighbors' concerns about a large 25-foot curb cut to walk across it.

And you you just alluded to that would be something the applicant would be would consider.

Yeah, I believe this uh the the site plan you see, I think is from the original application that had two lanes, and I think it's I think the uh the current plan is one lane, and so it would not need as wide of a driveway as wide of that that exit.

Yeah, it appears on the in y'all's in the Jade Consulting documents that is this I guess this is an old document as well.

Let's see.

Sorry.

Any other questions or maybe before I might know the answer to the last question?

Yeah, we'll be I know it's a formality.

Your name and address.

Doug Thomas, um 1301 U.S.

Highway 98, Daphne.

Uh, in terms of this, yes, this was our preliminary site plan.

Um, and I do think there was some confusion.

We never had any intention to do a secondary drive-thru lane.

Our intent was to have the uh drive right up against the building.

Um so this allows for what they commonly call slip lane, where if there is a drive-through, um, I I think we'd be fine to re-engineer site plan to limit a curb cut to 12 feet um within reasons like we as Mr.

Pipe stated, it's our intention to um fit in with the city ordinances as well as well as possible.

And so to have a minimized curb cut there, I don't think is going to be an issue for us.

That's great.

Yeah, I think you could still possibly have the slip come out one lane and then come down into one smaller curb cut.

Yeah, I think that can be engineered.

We actually had talked to neighboring properties about trying to use one common curb cut that was already there.

It was not they were not in agreement for their business plan, but we did look at all possible engineering scenarios in terms of hey, can we limit another curb cut and you know kind of jut out and bump into a neighboring property?

And it just wasn't something that they were agreeable to, and I understand that they've got a business to run as well.

So okay, thank you.

All right, any further questions?

All right, anyone would like to speak on this application has anything to add.

All right, opposition, anything to add?

And formality, but name and address.

Kelly Baker 254 State Street.

So this diagram shows a 12-foot setback going across the setback drive-thru.

It's not 12 foot wide, that's talking about the setback.

Are you still talking about having the slip lane and the drive-thru?

Yeah, you got to address we've got to have uh kind of an order to things.

Go ahead and ask your questions, and then we'll let it because that's like two lanes of traffic, and I know that they're saying this is an exit only.

How are we gonna denote that?

Because people trying to get to the bank cannot turn onto Joe Ackham to get in there, they have to drive all the way around the block and come down Joe Ackham and pull in all day long.

People who want to go to that bank are gonna be either driving the wrong way into the exit, or they're gonna be pulling in Greer's parking lot parking and walking over, which Greers doesn't want.

Uh, if they have to put exit-only signs facing east and west, we've all seen how ugly that gets when someone has an exit-only drive-through because of what's happened on government street, etc.

with all those drive-throughs at Waffle House at PNC, what they have to do to denote an exit only.

It would almost be better if that were the entrance to the bank and not the exit.

However, then people would be hitting each other head on.

People coming out the drive-thru and people going into the bank.

I'm just trying to figure out if there's any better way to let the people enter there and exit onto Joe Ackham Street.

It just makes more sense.

But then I don't know where you'd put your drive-through.

It just makes a lot more sense.

I mean, that's that design right there funnels traffic around a block to get to that bank.

No one's gonna do that.

All day long, people will be driving into Greers parking and walking over.

I just wanted to point that out.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Anyone has anything in opposition they want to add?

All right, Mr.

Pipes, you got anything or I'll be brief.

Um, in talking about it, we're I mean, like I said, the banks got a very non-adversarial opinion of trying to be here.

We want to fit in.

Um, I think that brings up a great point of uh we were just talking about it a little bit.

There's probably a way that we can do some landscaping.

Our our landscaping architecture plan is currently in process.

Um there's probably a way we can landscape a little bit on that that would drive slip lane in drive-through out one exit.

In terms of looking at the building and another, we've looked at multiple site plans here.

We the two things we really wanted on site parking and a drive-through.

That's the two kind of non-negotiables when our board and our CEO plan a building.

So in looking at that, if you come in on St.

Louis and enter uh X on Joe Accom, you're giving up.

We even looked at if we could do the drive on the back, but you give up all your parking there.

And so we've kind of come back to this is a pretty reasonable site plan for what the bank really needs to operate.

Uh and and I'll answer any questions anybody has on that.

But I think in terms I can't control pedestrian or I can't control motor vehicles and how they go up and down side streets.

I mean, I don't that's not uh excuse me.

So I but I I would be willing.

I I don't intend to put a bunch of signs out that are unsightly if there's something that we could design that is fitting, uh a better looking landscape sign or something.

Banks agreeable to do whatever we can with our reason to fit in.

So yeah, Mr.

Chairman, yes just so I can understand.

So what um the way it's shown, I don't know what the width of that of that throat is on that curb cut.

Do we know what that is at a 24?

What on St.

Louis?

I'm going to assume that since it's showing I think the drive-through each lane is 10 feet wide, so it's at least probably 22 feet, but yeah, with the radius.

Well, I will point out though that the CRC hasn't you know vetted this site plan either for downtown as shown is what I'm asking.

Okay, so it's about 22, not including the radio.

Okay.

So what we're talking about, what Taylor is for my own benefit, is uh reducing the the uh um the size of the of the curb cut on St.

Louis to where it's only passable by one vehicle.

Is that what we're talking about?

And then and then trying some way signage or whatever without being ugly, sure.

Um to keep people from from turning into the bank.

No, I actually I agree.

That's a great point.

I think that the he's brought it up.

I can see a way that we can limit that, and I I think we can build in something that is aesthetically pleasing that would prohibit or or not prohibit, we're not gonna put a crossing bar up, but would try to block all or move.

One of those devices that if you go over it the wrong way, it blows the tires.

I don't know if we're gonna go that far.

I don't I don't want the liability, but that I just think there's some way we can landscape that that will deter cars from going in that way, and and then once again limit the curb cut so that it's as small as possible with one exit.

So um, I I do think that's very important, and and it's not that I don't agree with with their um positions on walkability.

Um, and I think having having the ability that the potential ability for two cars to be going out in different directions and crossing.

Um I think that could be dangerous and certainly uh create problems.

So I'm with Mr.

Atchison on that.

I'm in agreement there.

I think that can be I'm happy to try to accommodate that.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any further questions of the board?

All right.

That'll conclude our public hearing regarding this uh request for a variance.

Um I'm with the statement on trying to figure out how you direct traffic and everything.

I mean, that's anywhere you've got an intersection like this, it can be difficult to from a traffic engineering standpoint.

Um question for Steven, this is a CRC thing, probably more so.

So when they look at the site and the design elements, based on the downtown development requirements, the building has to go street frontage closer to the street and parking to the back.

Is that my understanding?

That is correct.

The structure has to be located within 12 feet of the front property lines along the street frontages.

So that would prohibit the project from being closer to Joacam and I mean uh further away and then having the drive-thru on the east side.

Correct.

Okay, so that prohibits that idea.

So all right, thank you.

All right, uh discussion of the board.

Okay, and here we go again.

Fair entertain a motion.

I'll move to approve limiting the curb cut on St.

Louis Street to 12 feet.

Motion with conditions.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Okay, a motion carries.

Thank you.

All right, we're on application 6704 regarding 706 Monroe Street.

And welcome back, Mr.

Milling.

And we'll give uh everyone a little time to depart while the applicant comes to the podium.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

So Mr.

Metcalf is having to leave.

Thank you.

And so Mr.

Allen has left, so that means we have six still remaining, and we have a quorum, so we can continue.

I just wanted to make you aware that it takes five to approve a motion.

Okay.

We've got all we need.

Yeah.

All right.

Your name and address.

Lucy Barr 3925 Spring Hill Avenue.

And you're requesting a variance to allow existing residents to be less than 20 feet from the property line of downtown development.

And so tell me the purpose of your variance.

Why you were requesting a variance?

The new owners to the house would like to add on to the house on the rear property line, which backs up to Church Street Cemetery.

When the house was built before the UDC, the setback apparently was much less than what it is under the new requirements with the UDC.

So the existing dwelling right now at the closest about 6.76 and a half feet.

And we would like to add a little covered port to that.

With what the rear wall of the house is presently.

So we don't think that that would be an inconvenience to the cemetery behind us.

And then to the right hand side is the parking lot.

So it shouldn't interfere with anybody over there.

Okay, and the side yard is acceptable.

The right side yard.

Yes, sir.

The uh the downtown development district regulations allow uh front and side yard setbacks to match those of adjacent structures, or in this case the existing structure on the site.

Uh however, it does not make that exception for the rear yard setback.

Um, so that's why the the variance application is before you today.

Okay.

All right, questions of the board.

And do you have something to add?

You're here today.

You sat through all this.

I'm the owner.

Okay.

Just support.

Moral support.

Okay.

All right.

Once again, questions of the board.

All right.

Anyone in the audience, either in support or opposition?

All right, we have none for the record.

Um, all right.

Well, that'll conclude our public hearing regarding your application for a variance.

And chair entertain a motion, Mr.

Chair, I motion to approve.

Yeah, motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Okay, motion carries.

Thank you for your time.

All right, application 10.

6705-6541 regarding 3366 Cottage Hill Road.

Your name and address for the record, sir.

Dennis Lying, 3670, Riverview Drive.

And this is for an off premise sign variance to allow an off-premise sign to be erected in a B3 community business district.

The unified development code requires all signs to be on the site.

So you want to tell the board why we should consider this?

Well, I have this particular is going to be a car wash, like we need one more on the corner.

But I have a shopping center across the street as well.

And I 25 years ago, I couldn't afford a sign like this.

I don't know if I can afford it now.

But to advertise for my tenants, and then also I was gonna advertise for in general offer to nonprofit organizations to have a little bit more charitable time through the airwaves and other spiritual uplifting messages to go out there.

But basically for my car wash and other advertisements, it will be a separate LLC involved on the sign.

Okay.

Do we have questions of the board for the applicant?

I've got a question.

So one of the primary uses of sign will be to advertise for your center across the street.

Is that right?

Correct.

Okay.

As well as the car wash.

And you do have a sign on the center across the street already?

I do.

Okay.

Okay.

Do we have any additional questions?

Do we have and you may have to pull it up?

Pictures that show what all this is going to look like.

I'm seeing the digital.

There is a picture if you go to the application documents for this application.

There is a uh a rendering of what the sign would look like.

Okay, it says 200 square foot pylon sign.

It shows full service wash on it.

I'm sorry.

I um look only picture I see is it shows uh says full service wash.

I guess it's a it it's a it's a proposed digital sign, so the graphic would change on it.

Yeah.

Question for staff, what are we providing a sort of variance on the size or the height or just the the fact that it's an off-premises thing?

The size and height comply as proposed.

However, the advertisements of business not businesses not located on this property, is what requires the variance.

Okay, thank you.

So if he had put this sign up and it was just advertising the car wash, then that would have been compliant.

Correct.

That would be allowed by right.

But he disclosed that he was going to put more messaging on it than what so he could have put it up and then added additional messaging, and we would have never known otherwise.

He's asking for permission rather than forgiveness.

Yeah, I see.

I understand.

Yes.

Excuse me.

Yes.

If if I have to put it under a create a lease from my myself to another entity with another LLC, someone indicated that would be part of it, but I'll just cutting through the chase and going this way rather than asking for permission.

Right.

I understand.

We appreciate it.

Um we have plenty of people asking for forgive forgiveness on other things that we have to deal with.

All right.

Questions of the board once again.

I don't have a question.

I do have a statement though, and I I appreciate the way you've gone about it because it seems like we see a lot who don't and come to us after the fact.

Is um the hardship here.

I mean, you have a sign that's advertising the businesses on your current strip center, and for us to approve an additional sign that then we have very little control, and you're you know, you're advertising your center plus the car wash.

That just seems like we're going down a slippery path, but you know, I don't I don't see where you have a sign on your existing property that advertises those businesses.

You've got a car wash, you could have a sign that advertises that to have the ability to advertise your other tenants.

Well, as far as um, you know, whether it's been done before or not, uh, as far as a this type of variance, how many people are doing it that did not ask for permission?

I'm sure there are a lot of them out there, uh, where they're doing like kind and trade outs with some of their vendors that come to their building, bug treatment, plumbers, what have you?

The problem that I have is and where I got this idea is that an advertisement company came to my and tried to buy to lease just a three by three area to put a billboard up.

What's the difference of them putting something if if I I created another LLC, would that not be suitable?

Like another entity, whether Lamar advertising or somebody coming in and they put a sign up there.

Is there any difference if if I'm creating it as a uh under another LLC?

It's a different business.

Is Lamar allowed to put additional signs up along the interstate?

So there was a billboard that was recently permitted nearby the site, just uh up down Cottage Hill.

Um any new billboards along the interstate or anywhere in the city do have to have certain requirements as far as buffers from residential locations, and if there wanna be a digital uh sign, then they have to remove the three faces from other signs that they own within the city that are not digital.

So the conversion of signs to digital would result in the overall reduction of billboards within the city of Mobile So you could remove your sign on your strip center, and then no, that's that's all another separate uh separate LLC.

But as far as you know, putting a sign up um like I say is it it is a a larger sign, uh a 10 by 20 for advertisements of other people that may want it from a neighbor that's a church next door.

Um I plan to give churches uh nonprofit organizations more so than what other people that are in the business all the time for all right.

So I have a question.

I can see where this could go too.

Um how many other businesses do you have on that other sign?

Um it has potential for 14 spots on your current existing sign that's on your other property.

14 yeah, 14 year approved for 14.

Correct.

Well, I think it was before you had a sign ordinance for how many advertisements or tenants' names you can put on a building.

I mean from twenty twenty-five years ago.

Right.

Well, I can see this being a different an informal billboard, is what it's sounding like.

So and you could scroll 15, 20, 25 different.

I mean, you could be subbrending it out to somebody other than your existing.

I could.

Yeah.

If the we should approve this.

Um, if that's I mean, I I'm looking for advertisement.

Actually, advertising for other businesses.

Yeah.

Uh that's what I it could potentially be that.

All right.

Um questions of the board?

Yeah, well, staff.

Yes.

Uh the idea concept that he's proposing with the sign.

There is a separate ordinance that requires uh that a business should have totally separate from the actual business that they're to do what he's talking about doing what they're saying.

You want to use the sign predominate to my my understanding as an advertisement, so you can increase other revenues.

Correct.

Well, the zoning ordinance prohibits off-premise advertising except under certain criteria, and that's where the billboard regulations for the city come into play.

Essentially, the billboard regulations are designed to not allow new billboards unless you, for example, as Ms.

York was stating, if you propose to put up a digital billboard, then you have to take down faces from three other deal board billboards.

So you're reducing the total number.

Um typically when you have a business, you're only supposed to be advertising your business on your property.

And then if you go through a process to get a billboard approved, then you would be allowed to do what's called off-premise advertising, which would allow you to put signs up for any other business, but that's not located on your property.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions of the board for the applicant?

Okay, do we have anyone in the audience either in support or opposition?

We have none for the record.

Thank you, sir.

That'll conclude our public hearing regarding this application.

Um I'm not sure if it was Mr.

Milling or who, but I question whether or not this is just a different form of a billboard, and we're just creating another line of opportunities for um unofficial billboards.

So anyway, with that uh chair entertain a motion.

I will make a motion to deny it.

Okay, do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, I have a motion to deny it with a second.

Do I have any further comments, questions?

All those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Motion carries that the request is denied.

All right, we had minutes.

Did everyone have an opportunity to review the minutes?

Any corrections?

All right, with that motion to approve the minutes as presented.

They were for January 6th, 2025, February of 2025, and March of 2025 for the record.

All right.

Chair entertain a motion to approve those.

Motion to approve, Mr.

Chair.

I have a motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

A motion carries.

Minutes are approved.

All right.

Any other business for today?

And I know our attorneys are not here, but uh no, but we do have an update for you.

Uh several of you uh have requested an update about the car sales on government near the Greyhound bus station.

Uh I got the joy of testifying in court last week with Doug about that site, and the judge has signed the injunction giving them 14 days from last Thursday to comply with your conditions, or else the sheriff will be there to uh shut the business down.

So hopefully by uh this time this meeting next month, we'll either have a compliant business or there won't be one.

Okay, well, question is that the one that's adjacent to um Captain D's.

Uh it's I think it's two lots over, it's next to the VFW house.

Okay, well, that will be your next one to visit because that one's encroaching as well.

Yeah, I'm not sure if that's from the same people or different people, but that's on our radar.

All right.

All right.

Um that is still ongoing.

I'm not sure what the the current dates are for that.

That has not yet, no sir.

That is still ongoing, yes, sir.

That that trial was supposed to be this month, but it has been postponed.

Okay, thank you.

I that'll conclude our hearing or variance meeting.

Thank you again for being here, uh Taylor.