All right.

Good afternoon, everyone.

We're gonna call the May 4th 2026 Board of Adjustment to order.

First, let me go through a series of announcements and kind of just basic rules, and then we'll we'll go ahead and get started.

Uh first of all, we have to uh we'll call a roll call and then we'll do a review and approval of the agenda, and then as we go through the agenda, we'll call for the applicant to come to the podium.

If you'll give your name and address for the record, uh four individuals can speak in favor of an application for an opposition.

The applicant and each of those uh individuals gets five-minute time period, there'll be a warning at four minutes saying you got a minute, you got to summarize your statement or comments, and then the applicant will have an opportunity for a two-minute uh time period for rebuttal.

If you will direct your comments and statements to us as the board, not to others in the audience or to the staff.

And if I feel that because we've interrupted somebody or we've had questions, we can extend that time period.

It's at my discretion.

If you've got questions regarding the board's decision, you call the planning department at two five one two oh eight fifty-eight ninety-five.

And at the end of those statements and the rebuttal, then we'll call for um deliberation of the of the board and for a motion, either in support or in opposition to the application request.

It takes five to affirm a motion.

We have six individuals here, so it takes at least five to uh approve a motion.

And I will ask before I forget if you got cell phones and including the board members, turn them on silent or off so we don't have a disturbance.

If you've got any handouts that the board should look at, if you'll give them to staff now so that we don't have to stop the meeting to distribute, I'd appreciate it.

Okay, with that we'll start with roll call and then we'll get busy with the agenda.

Starting with uh Mr.

Williams?

Mr.

Acheson?

Here Ms.

Rarrell?

Here, Mr.

Morris?

Mr.

Petway?

Absent.

Mr.

Milling?

Absent?

Mr.

Golden?

Mr.

Metcalf?

And I'm William Guest Chair.

We have a quorum, so we can proceed with the meeting as scheduled.

And uh we'll start with the application, which was uh held over from last meeting, I believe.

Sixty seven forty-four sixty-seven hundred.

This one was at the request of our or at our guidance of our attorney.

Uh and my law partner, Ricardo Woods, who's the city attorney, will be here momentarily, and we're gonna go into executive session after this meeting to discuss this litigation.

Okay.

Did we have anyone here?

It was in interest with this application.

Okay.

So we're gonna hold that one over for uh discussion at the end of the meeting.

All right, application two, which is sixty-seven oh two, sixty-seven oh three, sixty-six fifty-three regarding two fifty Saint St.

Louis Street.

Is the applicant here today?

Good afternoon.

And you have the third one as well, right?

Um it's two and three, yes.

Yes.

So if you'll give us your name and address for the record, yes, Douglas Thomas, 9228 Sanibel Loop, Daphne, Alabama, 36526.

Okay, and your requesting an extension?

That's correct.

From a previous uh application that variants approval.

Has anything changed?

No.

If anybody has a question or wants an update, I'm happy to answer.

Other than that, we're still proceeding.

So okay.

Any questions of the board for the applicant?

Do we have anyone in the audience either in support or opposition to this particular request for an extension?

Okay, we have none.

All right.

If you'll just hang around since you've got the next one.

Uh and was what was the time frame for your extension request?

I believe we were asking for six months.

Six months.

Okay.

All right.

I have a request for a six month extension.

Chair entertain a motion.

So move.

Have a motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

Second, have a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Motion carries.

All right.

Application 6703, 6702, 6653 again, 250 St.

Louis Street.

Name and address for the record.

Uh Douglas Thomas, 9228 Santa Bell Loop, Daphne, Alabama, 36526.

Okay, and this is also an extension request?

That is correct.

Bless you.

Has anything changed regarding this application?

No, sir.

Still still in process and fully engaged with our architect and civil and working towards it.

Just need a little more time to get it all worked out.

Um have not signed a contract with the GC yet, but working with one closely to value engineered as we go to make sure everything's cost effective, so it's proceeding nicely.

Okay.

Six months as well.

Please.

Okay.

Uh questions of the board for the applicant.

Do we have anyone in the audience either in support or opposition?

Okay, that'll conclude our public hearing regarding the request for an extension.

Thanks, sir.

Uh chair entertain a motion.

Move to extend 180 days.

And I have a motion to extend.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Motion carries.

All right.

Application 4, 6747, 6652.

Regarding 1408, Cody Road North.

Is the applicant here today?

Okay, once again, this is for 1408 Cody Road North.

Elliott Land Development.

All right.

Do we have any communication from the applicant?

We have not, sir.

Okay.

All right.

Well, we'll hold this one until later in case the applicant arrives late.

Let's go to application five, which is 6748, 6715, 6153 regarding 3244 Dauphin Street.

Your good name, your name and out address.

Uh Jason Toole 1031C West 23rd Street, Penama City, Florida.

And we're the engineer for Chick-fil-A.

Okay.

And you're asking for front yard, setback tree planning, dulster variants, and a canopy within 25 foot.

Yes, sir.

All right.

You want to tell the board why we should consider this.

So yeah, so I'll take them one by one if that's okay.

Yes.

Uh with the canopy.

Um so this will be redeveloping.

So there's currently a Chick-fil-A on the what I'm looking at now, the right side.

Uh the left side is an addition uh another restaurant that's operating right now, or previous lot.

Uh Chick-fil-A would be combining both lots, uh, redeveloping the site.

And in order to try to separate the drive-through traffic from the parking, uh, we get an isolated drive-thru, but that does put the order point canopy.

I'm sure if you're familiar with Chick-fil-A, they have the canopies out for their uh employees to take the orders underneath that.

So that would be within that front setback.

Uh the reason I feel it's a little different is because we do have that uh 60-foot right-of-way uh between Dolphin Street and our site that serves as the service road.

We would be extending that service road on through to the left.

That would not be part of our property, but that would be uh provide additional buffer.

There's also landscaping that would be uh maintained as well between that service road and dolphin street.

Uh so that would kind of address the front yard setback and the reduced tree plannings.

Uh while we don't have the tree plannings in the buffer, we do uh we're only required to have four parking lot trees.

We're gonna provide 12 to try to offset those that we wouldn't have in that front area, and then as far as the dumpster in the front yard, because of the the way the site is a corner lot, so we have two front yards.

So we have a front yard on the left and also a front yard on the front.

So if you look at it, we did try to put the dumpster as far to the top of the page as possible, but that still is considered a front yard because we have two frontages.

So really the only possible place that could be considered the back would be over to the top right corner, which would be where the drive-thru exits, and so a dumpster truck trying to go through the drive-thru just wouldn't work feasibly.

So the board for the applicant.

Okay, the canopy is quite a distance from the actual restaurant.

You you currently have a canopy at this location, correct?

Correct.

Yeah, so this would be actually a complete tear down and rebuild of the store.

And so that canopy would be the order point canopy.

There's a second canopy that is on the right side of the restaurant that would cover the uh food pickup window as well.

But the order point canopy is is the one that is within the setback.

Okay.

All right, once again, any questions of the board for the applicant?

Okay.

Do we have anyone in the audience either in support or opposition today that would like to speak?

All right, did we have any public comments regarding this application?

No, sir, we did not.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thanks, sir.

Discussion of the board.

All right, chair entertain a motion.

So move, Mr.

Chair.

Findings of fact.

And uh a B and C.

All right.

I have a 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.

All right.

Application six has been withdrawn.

Was there anyone here that was for application six?

Okay, just for your info.

Application seven.

This is 6750 regarding 6368 Cottage Hill Road.

Good afternoon.

Your name and address.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jarrett McCraw, 3909 McGregor Court.

Okay, and this is a variance request to allow an indoor recreation facility in the B-2 neighborhood business district.

Okay.

You want to tell the board why we should consider it?

Yes, absolutely.

Um this is a B-2 zone, and we're requesting a use variance for indoor recreational facility.

Our business is not really an indoor recreational facility.

It resembles something between a daycare and a recreational facility.

So I want to take a few minutes to explain what it is so that everybody can understand what the business is all about.

Hopefully, make this easier for you all and potentially see some of y'all with your family and friends there as well.

Um Winnie's Play Cafe, it has the name play in it.

It is for children ages six months to six years old.

Young parents bring their children there to play, learn, and grow.

They do not drop off.

This is not a place where children run wild.

Uh parents engage with their children, they play with them there, they watch their children learn and grow.

It's actually the only place in the city of Mobile that exists like this.

And so it's not indoor recreation as we would traditionally think, like a kid lobby or a surge or something of that nature.

If you look at the pictures provided, it's very um kid friendly, it's very cute.

It's geared towards very young children, and these children don't have a place to go in the city.

And so that's what we did.

We opened a place where parents have a place to take their young children that have nowhere else in the city to go.

And so that's why we're here uh asking for a use variance because we feel like this does support the City Mobile's comprehensive plan to create a neighborhood-centric kid-friendly location where families can go to watch our kids learn and grow.

My memory serves this particular area previously had a similar, but it was more of a correct event rental.

Right.

So it was a house of bounce, and that's uh an inflatables business.

And so it was a a lot louder place, it was a more of an indoor indoor recreational facility, like you would think, but even that operated there for years with no complaints or disruptions, disruptance to the area.

Okay.

This is next to where I think there's a basket and robins.

That's right, there's a basket and robins opening.

There's a five and below.

So it's a very uh cohesive uh family destination.

Questions of the board for the application?

Mr.

Chairman, yes.

Um, what stages planning stages are you in?

So we're actually open for business.

That's what I was getting at.

We were we were under the impression it was zoned for this type of activity because there was a house of bounce, and so you know, our mistake we didn't check.

But you got a business permit, business license.

That's why we're here.

We don't have a business license.

So we get went to get a business license, went to zoning, got bounced back from zoning.

Um so we're open, we have you know, hundreds of people have come through there who love it, and here we are after the fact.

And how long how long you've been open?

We opened in February.

Okay.

Okay, other questions of the board.

Okay, do we have anyone in the audience either in support or opposition that would like to speak at this time?

All right, do we have any public comments regarding this?

No, sir, we did not.

Okay.

Yeah, just for my memory, the house of balance that was there previously, was it a different under a different UDC definition at the time?

Because that was several years ago.

I am not certain on how that was done, but that was prior to the current regulations, and so there may have been a change in classification with that.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Comments, questions from the board.

If this was not classified as an indoor rec, what other classifications might apply?

That was the best classification that staff could come up with.

So if children were dropped off, then it could be classified as a daycare, but because parents are staying there, it's not a daycare.

Uh so we really couldn't find any other best category to classify it as.

Okay.

All right, that it explains.

All right.

Comments for the board.

All right, with that, Chair entertain a motion.

I'll move to approve considering findings of facts A B and C and applying conditions one, two, and three.

Okay, I have a motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

I have a second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Motion carries.

Applications approved.

All right, was code of eight sixty-seven fifty-one, sixty-four ninety-two, thirty-five sixty-five regarding sixty fifty-one Old Shell Road.

Name and address, sir.

George Coles, 457 St.

Michael Street.

All right, and this is for an outdoor rec center or facility in a B2.

And there's a whole list of special exception requirements here.

All right.

Your reason why we should consider the special exception.

Yes.

So the Catholic Student Association at the University of South Alabama would like to put in two pickleball courts at their facility.

Um, this would expand the uh recreational opportunities for members of the student center and other students.

Uh it'd be conducive with the character of the neighborhood, which is composed primarily of student housing and university athletic facilities.

Okay, and there's currently a volleyball court that's correct on this site.

Sandpit volleyball court, yes, sir.

But this is considered a separate lot based on so it's on the same lot as the same pit volleyball court, but is a separate lot from the actual student center at the building.

Okay.

All right.

Questions of the board give Mr.

Metcalf time here to find the file.

Yeah.

Will there be any time restrictions of play?

So we had proposed 9 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

Yeah, Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

I think the reason that you brought that up is because the recent um uh yes, sir.

I'm aware of that.

And the neighbors, yeah.

And so the time, but I I'm what I was trying to do is see.

So there's not any, you know, with Lavretta, you got single family homes right adjacent there, you know, you don't really have that here.

And with the university athletic you got an apartment climb complex right there.

True, true.

But unfortunately, that's not something that we can address.

That's up to the city council, I would think.

You do have the uh you know, university athletic facilities right across the road, which certainly make plenty of noise as well.

So will this uh be lighted?

It will, yes.

Okay, Mr.

Chairman?

Yes, but the lights would the lights would go off when uh at the time of play when it concluded.

Doug, um just because there's some other issues, you know, with another location.

What's your feeling about that?

You can make it uh since the application of the staff report mentions uh their proposed hours of operation from 9 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

You can make that a condition of approval that'd be limited to those hours.

But that's really all that we can do.

Pardon?

That's really all that we can do with that.

Yes.

Okay, all right, thank you.

The tree buffer that's currently there, is that gonna remain?

Or is that on the adjacent property, not on your property?

Well, which trees are you referring to?

To the west.

Yeah, that will remain.

It's most of those are on the adjacent property though.

How far to the uh south on this property is this being proposed?

Um yeah, right there.

All right, pretty much even with the uh south end of the parking lot.

Well, the reason why I ask is there is no uh it doesn't appear to be any buffer between it and those apartments at the south.

Whereas if that was potentially moved farther north, it would be a little bit more separation okay, just as in consideration of Mr.

Metcalfe's point with the sound yeah, they do have a uh semi-permanent tent structure that is in between the volleyball court and the proposed pickleball location.

I see.

All right, any other questions, comments of the board.

Do we have anyone here either in support or opposition today that would like to speak on the application?

All right, that'll conclude our public hearing.

Thank you.

This is uh Mr.

Chairman.

One more thing.

Doug, um if this becomes the current ones being discussed, and maybe maybe this one, um, is that something that the city council could address putting in some new regulations about times and such for these pickleball courts in in uh um based upon their their distance from residential?

Well, in the Lavretta Park situation, that was city property, so the council you know had authority over that here would have to be uh complaints filed, and then something did then the applicant being willing to put up the same type of soundproofing that the city is doing at La Vretta.

But you know, this is farther away from those apartments than the houses in LaVretta Park, and they're those houses front yards are right across the street.

This is all this is also just two courts.

Lovretta park has more than just two places to put this.

Okay, I wasn't familiar with how many there were out there.

Yeah, what six?

Yeah, it's at least six courts.

Okay, all right.

Any other comments for the board?

Uh in review of the findings of fact, item K talks about noise and vibration, which I think this is something we're specifically talking about.

I would say the hours would I'm not even sure 10 o'clock is not too late.

Um maybe eight o'clock, maybe a little bit more reasonable.

Um, and whether or not they need to do some kind of green space buffer up at the south end of their property to just to help mitigate any noise or light from the yeah, if you'll come back to the podium Mr.

Metcalf made a good point.

Would your client be in consideration of maybe some reduce the hours maybe to eight o'clock and then even planning along that south border just to kind of help mitigate as much as we can?

Yeah, yeah, they would they would be amenable to that.

Okay, all right.

Any other comments?

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

If the board should consider the special exception application, I would ask that they consider reduction of the hours to 8 p.m.

and a requirement to create some kind of green space buffer, maybe coordinating with urban forestry or our city group for guidance.

And with that, Chair entertain a motion.

All right.

Well, with that, Chair will make uh recommendation to approve the special exceptions with findings of fact A through L with condition that in relation to K that the hours be reduced to 8 p.m.

latest for operation and that a green space buffer be created to the south portion of the property to mitigate any sound and light intrusion on the adjacent property owners.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Approve with those conditions.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

For the green buffer to the south, do you mean tree plantings or what type of uh green buffer are you?

I will defer to our city urban forestry folks for guidance.

Oh, okay.

I was just saying with coordination with their guidance.

And Mr.

Chair, did you add the uh following the conditions, the two conditions?

One and two.

Yeah, with one and two as well.

Revised site plan and full compliance.

Municipal codes and ordinances.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions?

All right, we'll go to application nine, which is 6752 regarding 1028 and 1032 Newman Lane.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair.

Uh Jared White, 1200 Dolphin Street.

I'm a board member of the Africaton Redevelopment Corporation.

Uh we are requesting a uh waiver of driveway length.

Uh this is a piece of property that uh has five historic homes on it.

There are two shotguns on the eastern lot, they're both national register contributing structures for the African historic district, and there's a duplex on the western lot that's a contributing structure.

Behind them are two studio uh type structures that are probably added in the 1950s.

Uh ARC has received funding from Mobile County to restore these structures.

We evaluated the best way to restore them given the very compressed footprint and determine a cottage court uh concept was the best.

And so um again, and we the structures will need to be raised off the ground for termite protection, but we don't want to move the front structures because they were contributing structures, and there's not enough width, even if we moved them to accommodate the 24 width for a driveway that's required for cost for cottage courts.

So we're asking for a waiver to allow a 12-foot driveway.

Uh we have provided an updated plat today because there are only five parking spots that are required for this density, and so we revised our plat to go from 10 parking spots to five parking spots to provide more green space behind common green space for the properties to use.

Um that's that's basically the the um application.

I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have about it.

Well, how many rooms in total will all these residents?

So they're all gonna be basically one bedroom residences.

These the shotguns are 400 square feet each, the duplex is 480 square feet, probably be redeveloped as a single residence while maintaining the duplex facade.

The back, I think one of the back structures is 180 square feet, the others 240 square feet, very small houses.

Okay, and there's so there's five structures, yes, sir.

So you're reducing your parking to accommodate five, uh, which is the requirement is that for the thing staff report.

And the drive is 12 feet, yes, sir.

Is there an existing drive?

There's not there's no improved drive.

It was just people working on the grass, basically in the past.

These have been vacant for a while as well.

Yeah, I I understand that.

All right.

One other note I would like to make the staff and ask about trash disposal.

We would request curbside pickup in lieu of a dumpster.

Okay.

All right, questions of the board for the applicant.

All right.

Do we have anyone in the audience either in support or opposition to the application of the day?

If you'll come to the podium, please.

You pull the mic down too.

Yeah.

There you go.

Oh, okay.

Your name and address.

My name is Rhonda James.

Uh, my address is 980 Hamilton Bridges Drive East.

And you actually and I don't I don't know if I'm opposing or uh well, I just have a question.

Uh because I have a uh because he said it's gonna take up some of the um the two-way uh road, and I want to know how how accessible that will be for the community uh for cars to come by.

Okay, we'll have to ask him that.

It's just the driveway, not for Newman Lane.

Oh, okay.

That's what a driveway except for the driveway into this property.

Newman lane would not be changed.

Oh, okay.

Okay, okay.

I thought that the lane would be changed from the letter.

Okay, no, that's a good question.

You have any other questions while you're at the podium?

No, sir.

How long is how long you've just been vacant?

Do you know?

Uh is my property?

No, this one here that the applicants are you familiar with?

I don't know.

Oh, okay.

I would say in excess of 10 years, probably closer to 20.

And one other thing, if I could have pointed out, we've you gotta come to the mic.

We've already done two houses, we've done two new info houses on Newman uh lane, so this would complement those houses we've done there, and then Mobile County Commission's working on another house in Newman Lane.

So some exciting things happening on the street.

Okay, are are you in support or opposition now?

You're supporting it.

Okay, how does it in that effect the community I'm in support?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, all right.

Anyone else in the audience who would like to speak on the matter?

All right, do we have any public comment on this?

No, sir, we do not.

Okay, thank you.

Um I have asked you one more question.

I realize that some of these structures have been there a while.

Yeah, what's the closest or the farthest I should say, distance of the last structure to the Newman Lane?

Uh it would be that 1028 C structure at the back.

Uh it's about 140 feet from Newman Lane.

Okay.

I'm just wondering from uh fire department access since they may not be able to access it directly.

Well, we did consider you know, 12 our understanding is the 12 foot width would accommodate a fire truck pulling into the property to access that back if needed.

Okay, all right, thank you.

All right, with that, that'll conclude our public hearing regarding the application.

Chair entertain a motion so moved.

Okay, concerning findings of fact, findings of fact, and that's whatever conditions here.

Um c one, two, and three.

Okay, and uh a site plan that'll reflect a complaint dumpster that would not be required because he's talking about a uh curb side, right?

Okay, all right.

Any other comments of the board?

Do I have a second?

Second, have a second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Motion carries.

All right, application 6753, 6365, 6295, 6006, 5953, regarding 103 North Warren Street.

All right, name and address, sir.

Uh it's Jerry Gray Arnold.

Address is uh 2557 South Durham Drive, 36606.

Okay, and this is for a forecourt area in a special district warehousing area, yes sir.

And from review earlier, it looks like this was previously approved.

Well, sir, and just expired and yeah, okay.

Anything changed?

Nothing.

All right, questions of the board.

Okay, Mr.

McCaston or not.

Oh, okay.

Once again, questions of the board.

All right.

Do we have anyone in the audience?

See there's support or opposition today.

Yes.

If you all have a seat, sir.

Good afternoon.

Name and address.

Good afternoon, Wanda Cochrane, 465 Dauphin Street.

I live and work just a few blocks from this site.

Um I live and work downtown and have for many years, and so I walk and bike the neighborhood frequently.

I don't really have uh a fixed opinion about this application.

If you might entertain those.

As I understand the application, the intent is to build a brew pub on the site.

Is that correct?

I don't think we necessarily have that detail, do we?

Yeah.

That is correct, yes, ma'am.

So brew pubs in this particular district downtown are allowed by right.

So the application today is to deviate from the four court technical specifications.

Is that correct?

They want to exceed the maximum size allowed for the pedestrian four court.

Can you tell me if the dropout bakery site, which is on St.

Louis Street would is that considered a four court?

The the which which place, I'm sorry?

The the large uh landscaped and pedestrian area in front of the dropout bakery on St.

Louis Street.

Yeah, where they have the benches and the trees.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Is that considered a four court?

358 St.

Louis.

Okay.

So it looks like that project was additions to an existing structure, and so therefore different regulations uh apply.

Also, the pedestrian four court limitation that they're uh asking for for the variants on this current application is specific to SDWH districts, and that property is zoned uh T51.

Okay.

Um I biked down the street today and took a look at the site.

I look at it from time to time.

Um there's been a lot of building activity over the years.

Has anybody ever pulled a building permit to do that work?

Um a building permit was pulled for the structure.

It was originally an old garage structure, and during one of the hurricanes, some of the walls collapsed.

And so they did have permits to rebuild the structure uh and they were approved.

They have expired and work did cease as well on the property.

So if you look at Google Maps, it has a feature so that you can look at how the property has changed over time.

The downtown development code was adopted in 2014, and 2016, that garage was extant at that time.

There may have been damage, but what has been rebuilt appears to be different structures.

They don't have roofs on them.

So it's a series of walls, and I'm not really sure how you can approve a forecourt when the regulations themselves say that it has to be bounded by two buildings at a minimum of two buildings.

Um those buildings that are shown are proposed.

It seems to me that the cart is a little bit before the horse.

I don't know.

Have building plans been approved.

What is the timetable from construction?

Uh you know, the the legal standard is hardship.

So they're saying we can't design something to meet the code when there's nothing there now.

This site has been through the consolidated review committee several times, and it's been to the board multiple times in the past.

Uh the design that was submitted to the CRC, you know, required that they get a variance in order to allow the building to be constructed as they wish to build it.

Well, I understand they're trying to get a variance to do what they want to do, but I don't understand why you can't comply with the code.

There's nothing there other than some walls that have been reconstructed, and I don't have a problem with a brew pub, but we have a code for a reason.

Technically, there's even if if the courtyard that's being proposed is the one that's reflected on this site plan, I don't see two buildings.

For four codes.

So the kind of path for me would be the hardship is maybe some transitional zoning area where it could have as easily been a T5-1.

If is that four court allowed in T5-1?

Let's see.

It looks like for a new pedestrian four court that uh the 600 square foot uh dimension does apply to T5, T6, and SDWH.

Okay, thank you.

One other point I would make too is that the applicant's saying that they need the larger fork court to accommodate a handicapped accessible ramp as well as stairs.

That's relevant.

I mean, I I don't understand why you can't design it.

The site plan that's been submitted, you know, there are no design documents here, and the only reason I'm concerned about this, it's my understanding, and maybe staff can clear this up, is that under the new unified development code, there is no separate site plan review which will ever come before any board.

Well, um so I I mean I don't know what their building plans are, they haven't shown a schematic, they haven't shown a you know, this is this is our aspirational I you know you're just looking at walls that have been under construction for years.

Yeah, I don't know.

Mr.

Metcalf has a question.

Um this is site plan specific.

So no, they they have well, we wouldn't have seen building drawings anyway.

That's not within our um purview, but um but it is site plan specific, so they would have to construct these buildings that are shown on the site plan in some fashion or form.

But if that box labeled proposed courtyard is what we're talking about here, and I think it is it's it doesn't have buildings on two sides, that is just a wall.

Well, Mr.

Yes.

Um a four court is supposed to be in the front.

Hold on, hold on, hold on.

Yeah, yeah.

Um you said why can't they build it to comply?

The very reason for this board is when people want to break the rules.

Pardon me?

When people want to break the rules, they come here.

That's the purpose of or an exception to the right.

But but in in layman's terms, that's pretty much what it is.

When they want to do something outside the code itself, they come here.

Oh, well, so uh forgive me, but uh I thought when you were considering a variance, you were here to hear evidence about whether the applicant could prove a hardship to such an extent that would prevent compliance with the ordinance, and a hardship is something that has to do with the property, it can't be self-imposed.

I am not opposed to a courtyard, I am not opposed to a brew hub.

I am not opposed to this man's business.

What I'm opposed to is an open-ended special uh variance, which we don't even know what we're approving.

Okay, there's not enough detail here to know, and and this matters because I live downtown.

I have lived downtown for 30 or more years.

I have raised three children downtown, and I would invite the daycare fellow to bring his children downtown.

The reason this is important is because downtown has a zoning code which is like nothing else in the city.

And the city of Mobile is 180 square miles.

The downtown development district is less than a half mile.

So if you are looking at the land mass as a pie downtown is less than one degree of the circle, and within that one degree, we are expected to get along with and accommodate hotels, restaurants, bars, beer pubs, marijuana shops, part-time residences, full-time residents, apartments, single family, it's a wonderful place to live.

So I have had personal experience with a variance that was approved for bar restaurant, and it somehow morphed into a concert venue.

So if you approve this as a beer pub, the use can be we're not approving a beer pub.

We're approving the but without knowing what the building looks like, how can you approve the forecourt?

Because the code requirements say the front of the building, the forecourt can only be in front of the building.

Okay, let me ask.

Okay.

Sorry.

You're you're you're fine.

If I could talk to the applicant, sure.

Before he comes up, though, do we have anyone else that would like to speak on this application?

All right.

Thank you.

Sure.

All right.

So opportunity for rebuttal.

But I have a question as well.

And it kind of goes along lines with this.

So if he did 600 square feet, then would he have to be here today?

No, sir.

Okay.

So back to the basic of the question.

Why the extra 200 square feet?

If you look at the site plan, the the top corner.

Well, let me step back.

The exist the original existing building is the white box in the center.

Right.

We needed a storage component that the way the building looks and lays out.

There are several large carriage house doors in the original building, which we are bringing back.

We've recreated.

They're about 12 foot width.

Um I can go on forever about this, but you get two minutes.

I got you.

Uh, in order to line those doors up, that structure really needs to be in that top corner.

In order to satisfy the 600 square foot four court, we would have to shift that structure towards St.

Michael, and we'd have a 200 square foot dead space behind the building, which we wouldn't be doing anything with.

It would be a site to accumulate refuse, you know, etc.

I don't think it would make the building more appealing from the aesthetics from the street to satisfy that 600 square foot forecourt size, given also the handicap ramp that that takes a section of that.

I'm sorry, okay.

It takes the section of that canopied terrace, which will eventually look like something like the okay.

Well, back back to my question.

The proposed courtyard is that that left bottom corner, right?

Um that's what we're talking about today.

Well, there's two courtyards.

The courtyard we're speaking on is on Warren Street.

Um, that courtyard is 49 foot by 17.

Okay, so the one that's on St.

Michael is not part of this application.

Is part of the application is not part of the variance.

I guess in here, it's not part of this variance application.

Okay, that's what I was looking at.

So the one on the right, which is at the corner meets the four court definition, I guess.

It does because it's bordered four court to my understanding can be bordered on two sides or three, and this is bordered on three sides, the existing structure or the main structure building expansion, and then the canopy terrace, which gives a perception from the street of an enclosed courtyard.

There's going to be a fencing in front of that with a gate.

Um there's going to be two different entrances on the Warren Street side as well as on the St.

Michael side.

Um applicant is the ADA ramp within this proposed forecourt.

Yes, it is in a way the the ADA ramp, it's an 18-inch rise.

Um it's going to have an 18-foot overall length that's in that uh proposed terrace with canopy.

The um there's an inlet, and then you immediately turn towards the building to make that ramp.

And so that canopied space is 17 foot by 20 foot.

It's about 300 square feet.

Um the open space is the four court space above that next to that.

So quick question for staff back to another brewery on St.

Louis Street.

Um Fairhope Brewery now.

They have a big yard in between their building and St.

Louis Street with no walls bordering it.

Because it's not bordered by walls, it's not considered a four court, it isn't uh restricted in how big it can be.

Is he only under this restriction because it's being named and called a forecourt?

Give us a moment to look that up.

And while you're looking up that, I'll point out uh La Del Cia on Dolphin Street, um has a courtyard in the front bordered by two walls, I believe, is surely over six hundred feet, and it's a very active and used space all the time.

I mean, we have a demand for outdoor areas for people to congregate.

We're talking about 200 feet or so here.

I'm a little confused about the restrictions, well, staff's looking for this.

Any other questions, comments of the board regarding the uh application?

Quick question.

So this is the same application we've approved before, correctly?

And is the exact same 2021?

Okay.

I mean, if you weren't building the expansion on the Warren Street frontage, that whole area would be considered four court, would it not?

Well, that it's I don't think so.

I mean, I'm I are you're directing your comment to the applicant or to the applicant.

I mean, what pull your mic closer to the I'm just trying to determine the difference between a courtyard and a four court, a four court's in the front of the building.

Yeah, four court being a front of the building being implied that it's I looked it up several times before I came in here, you know, uh grand entrance to a structure.

Um if you're referring to like a gas station, the four court would be the drive-in space for the gas station.

Um for a hotel, it would be the the entranceway.

How much space is between the existing building and Warren Street on your property there?

Um feet too from the in seat.

So the the building expansion uh is 17 feet back from the uh from the street.

The original building was three feet further.

We had to uh when the when the hurricane collapsed the original walls, um we had to dig new footers um and pour those and um so the existing historic building was approximately 17 feet off of Warren Street.

The the current new wall, the existing building was 20 feet off of the street, and then the the shaded area with building expansion is the is the new exterior lines of the wall of the building.

Okay, what what would prevent you to move that proposed purpose wall further towards uh St.

Michael?

If you had to, you'd still end up with the same look.

Well, in the interim of getting the permit last time, those walls are up.

Uh they're constructed.

We would have to bulldoze those walls.

Oh, so they're already existing.

They're existing, they've been inspected.

I mean, we've gone through the process of we had a an event occur and it caused a halt in the construction, but okay.

Um Mr.

Chairman, regarding the uh brewery on St.

Louis Street, it could be that when that was uh when the building was built there once it was moved from Mississippi that it may have had a a lawn frontage frontage type.

Uh if it has now transitioned into a different frontage type based on how they've made improvements that were not original on the original plans, that's a different issue.

But the the courtyard, the pedestrian courtyard or frontage is for the primary entrance to the building.

So the other one on St.

Michael Street is not a part of this application, is not up for consideration.

It's just for the primary entrance for this particular building.

Any follow-up question.

Okay, you can have a seat.

Thank you.

All right, once again, do we have anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on this application either in support or opposition?

All right.

That'll conclude our public hearing.

Mr.

Chairman, order before you deliberate, I would like an opportunity to talk about some conditions if you guys are thinking about ransoming the application.

Well, from a point of order, you've already had the opportunity to speak.

Was there something well I I understand?

I I I get that, but you know, I thought we were trying to harmonize and the biggest problem.

Come come to the mic, I'll give you a minute if you can summarize in a very brief, which is an exception to the rules.

Uh I would ask that the board impose a condition that there be no outdoor electronic music, and that there be no uh concerts allowed, that you are approving this in connection with a brew pub.

And so the courtyard is to serve only those uh uses that are attendant with a brew pub.

What will be licensed as a brew pub?

Because when you are living downtown, the quality of life issues that arise have to do with noise.

We're talking about in this four-court area.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Any other comments, questions of the board?

All right, and for staff, just to refresh my memory.

What previous approvals has this property received?

Just uh CRC and the site has been to the Board of Adjustment several times before and has been to the consolidated review committee as well.

Uh right now, the only thing that they are lacking in order to move forward with the uh construction of the site is the variance approval for the four-court size.

Uh once they get that, then uh they've already submitted for permits uh and they can move forward in that process.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Excuse me, and Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Um Marie, uh, so this is this is or isn't the same application that we previously.

This is the same application as was most recently approved to the board.

So it has been the board several times.

It hasn't changed since we approved it, and the reason they're here is because it expired.

Correct.

That is correct.

Because of um weather, yes, sir.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Okay.

With that, uh chair entertain a motion, and as suggested, consider whether or not to allow outdoor what kind of outdoor activities.

And I will say a comment there.

Are there other places in downtown that do have outdoor music?

So I'm not sure that's gonna be a uh it might be a little discriminatory to allow some to have it and others not, but uh certainly it would be reasonable to put some hours of operation on outdoor music.

Okay, thank you.

All right, with that, chair entertain a motion.

Motion to approve, as we have before with no conditions other than A B and C.

Okay, I have a motion to approve with conditions, findings of fact ABC, yes.

Okay, do I have a second?

Second, second, any further discussion.

All those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye, and chair oppose, and the motion carries.

All right, let's go to application 11, 66, or excuse me, 6754, 235 Park Avenue South.

Hi, I am Katie Parker, 4197 Saddlewood Drive and Sairland, and I'm here on behalf of the property owner asking today for a variance to allow the construction of an accessory structure and a lot adjacent to the primary home.

Okay, and question has anyone recommended combining the lots?

They have, and uh administratively, we think that that's just an administrative effort that doesn't change the intended use of the property.

Um the property's been in its ownership currently for a very long time, with father and and daughter owning both pieces of property, and it just didn't both financially and and accessory didn't fit the opportunity.

So well, the only reason I ask is because sometimes down the road one piece of property might get sold and only has a pole barn on it.

Sure.

Both pieces of property are owned by the the is a it's a single parcel with two parcels with or two lots within that single parcel, so there would have to be a subdivision at any time even to sell the property.

Okay, all right.

Questions of the applicants?

Excuse me, Mr.

Chairman.

And you said something about subdivision, it was administrative.

No, I my my offer, no sir.

My offer was that in order to do the subdivision, it would have been an administrative effort on behalf of the owner that we felt didn't uh affect procedurally and yes, sir.

Okay, but technically it's not a part, it's two parcels slash two lots.

It's one parcel together.

It's one parcel under with two lots.

Well, two lots then.

It is yes, sir.

It is two lots.

So it's not one, it just happens to be under the same ownership.

It's under the same parcel, yes, sir.

So it is two lots, it is two lots, and it would be allowed to be sold individually.

It would have to be subdivided before it was it would have to be oh, it's not a legal line of record yet.

Okay, so it would have to have to be subdivided.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

It's much smarter than I am.

All right, any additional questions?

All right.

Uh did we have any public comment on this one?

No, sir.

Okay.

All right.

Anyone in the audience either in support or opposition to the application of the day?

You're welcome to come up if you got something to say.

Okay.

All right.

So Doug, just to clarify, if they wanted to sell the lot with the pole barn, what would it require?

They'd have to.

Okay.

Yeah, and if it were depending on how long it's been those legal those meets and bounds, it could be conveyed as one.

Yeah, 1832, yeah.

Okay, okay.

All right.

I may have asked already.

Do we have anyone in the audience either in support or opposition?

All right.

That conclude our public hearing regarding the application.

Um that board.

All right.

Chairman entertain a motion.

Move for approval and findings of fact and uh um the following conditions or conditions one and two.

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?

Motion carries.

All right.

All right.

Application 12, 6755, 6691, 6331, 5764 regarding 3201 Airport Boulevard.

Name and address, sir.

Brandon Black, Timley Horn and Associates, 11 Northwater Street.

All right.

And this is for signed variants to minute previously approved sign variants to allow seven free standing and one square foot, each less than one square feet.

All right.

So why should we consider the previously approved variants?

And yeah, that's an amendment for the previously approved targets wishing to add their logo to their uh pickup signs.

That's it right there.

So it's part of uh target's comprehensive nationwide effort to modernize all their parking spaces, similar to how you see at Walmart pickup areas.

So did we previously approve the signs, but just without the logo?

Yes.

Okay.

Same number of signs, same number of signs, nothing's changed other than target adding their logo to it.

Okay.

Questions of the board.

How long ago did we approve this?

I believe that this site was most recently before the uh the board in was it March?

No, we had one more recently than that.

Yeah.

This is I just don't remember this one.

The last uh sign variants that the target received was not for these parking lot signs, it was for an informational sign on the wall that exceeded 20 square feet.

These signs would be considered informational if there was not a very tiny target logo in the back of the vehicle that's on the signs that's there.

Um, but this site was most recently before the board in the uh at the November meeting of last year.

Okay, so if the logo wasn't on there, then they wouldn't have to be here today.

That is correct, yes, sir.

Okay, all right.

Curiosity question.

I see that these signs are movable.

How does that affect whether it's a sign or not?

What was the question?

I see that these signs look like they they have wheels, they can be speaking to your microphone.

I can't hear you.

How does that affect whether it's a sign or not?

At the time of permitting, they will have to uh certify that the signs will meet the wind load requirements of the building code, and so they will not be allowed to be mobile.

Good answer.

Thank you.

All right, any further questions.

So do you have these currently in place temporarily?

They are not currently priced.

Okay, so what we see in these photos are just illustrations that is proposed.

Okay.

All right, once again, any questions of the board?

Do we have anyone in the audience that would like to speak in support or opposition?

All right, we have none.

Uh okay, thank you.

That conclude our public hearing regarding this particular variance request.

I'm trying to picture whether or not the Walmart has the symbol on theirs, like he was describing.

There has not been a sign variance granted for Walmart to have those.

I can tell you that.

Whether they do or not, I can't answer that, but they do not have approval from this board for it.

Yeah, I think all I remember is the pickup being scripted on it.

So the variance request would not be required if for these signs unless it had the because already existing.

If the logo were to be removed from the signs proposed, it would not, it would be considered informational and would not require a variance or a sign permit.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Comments of the board.

All right, Chair entertain a motion.

Move for approval, Mr.

Chair, subject to findings of facts and uh um conditions one and two.

Okay, I have a motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

Have a second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

All right, application 13 regarding this is application 6756 regarding 1645 dolls road.

And you've sat through all this today.

Thank you for being here.

Name and address.

My name is Jared Oates.

Uh recently.

My name is Jared Oates.

I recently purchased 1645 dolls and uh requesting a variance for an addition to the front of the home porch and an additional addition to the left side of the home to bring the front left corner for just a hair just to kind of square it off and give us a little more room inside the unit.

All right.

Quick question for staff.

Is this a 45-foot setback?

Is that the R1 setback requirement?

This site has an increased setback because at the subdivision process uh it the increased stepback was required in lieu of dedication for additional right of way.

So y'all have I don't know how we don't have the correct site plan.

There's a new site plan I have currently that will show y'all that one that kind of shows y'all better everything.

That's the current like property address.

It's an actual square, it doesn't have the other um property on the right hand side, as well as where it's showing the setbacks in the front.

Um you have something.

Oh no, it's up there now.

I didn't know, so I apologize.

I didn't realize which one y'all were looking at.

Yeah, that's what I have in our file.

So the front of the house faces Dawes Road?

Yes, sir.

Is there an existing porch?

Yes, sir.

It's four foot.

Um, and when you open the door, it's very hard to kind of walk in the doorway as you open it.

You get basically kind of pushed off the porch right now as it stands.

Um and unfortunately, I was in a car wreck, and it it's gonna get harder for me to walk as years go on as well as anybody else that might show up that you know needs a little bit more space to actually step on the front porch and walk inside the home.

So the addition is three foot six by twenty-two.

Yes, sir.

So you're really extending another 3.6 feet out towards Dolls Road.

Yes, sir.

That's the main issue right now is the additional 3.6 um foot forward.

Now the addition on the corner, is that something we have to consider?

Or is strict strictly the porch?

Correct.

The porch is the only part that's in the front setback.

Okay.

All right.

Well, let's simplify this.

Any questions of the board?

Anyone in the audience either in support or opposition has anything to add?

All right, did we get any public comments regarding this?

No, sir, we did not.

Okay, thank you.

All right, that'll conclude our public hearing regarding this application.

Chair entertain a motion.

Move to approve considering findings fact A B and C and applying conditions one and two.

Okay, a motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Motion carries.

Good luck to you.

All right.

And you're here for an application.

I think we skipped.

Are you here for another application?

Okay.

All right.

Well, I didn't know.

All right, we've got to go back.

Uh which one did we skip?

Number four.

Number four.

Yeah, it was number four.

All right.

Did we have any communications at all?

I think I asked that question.

We have not heard anything from the applicant.

All right.

In the past, the board's been considerate of extending an application for 30 days.

Do we want to do that or do you want to deny it by the lack of representation?

Mr.

Jay would make a motion to extend or to hold over to our next meeting.

Okay.

I have a motion to hold it over 30 days to the next meeting.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second have a second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Motion carries.

All right.

I do we need to go in to my partner texted me.

He's been called to the mayor's office for a meeting, so we'll just have to have that executive session next month.

Okay.

And hopefully that the case will be resolved by then and then we can act.

All right.

That may be good.

All right.

Do we have any other business for today?

The um I'd let a few of the board members know the illegal car lot on government boulevard.

Uh we were granted a permanent injunction by the judge two Fridays ago, and she gave the uh operator of the uh facility 30 days to remove all the vehicles.

All right, that's just for the one location.

Just that just that one, not the ones next to it, or I'm not sure.

Yeah, uh we're gonna see what they removed and you can probably have exempt included or expended to have to by there yesterday and they were blowing and going.

Okay for the VFW site that's next to it.

Uh we have received a business license request for that site to operate as a restaurant, so maybe those vehicles will be removed so that business can operate.

Let's uh vote on number one to hold it over.

I'm sorry, we need to do that.

Oh, yeah, that's a good point.

All right.

Uh uh recommendation of our legal advisor.

Chair undertaken a motion, hold over the first application.

So move for 30 days.

30 days.

Do I have a second?

Second, second, any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Motion carries.

All right, that'll conclude our public hearing.

The board of adjustment today.

Thank you.