OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Mobile, Alabama/City Council Meetings
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Mobile Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting - October 1, 2026

City Council Meetings — Thursday, October 1, 2026
BodyMobile, Alabama
SessionCity Council Meetings
DateThursday, October 1, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:59:25

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

15:17

I

Speaker 2

15:18

think that the that the uh they would have tried to figure that out before they got it, uh the feasibility before they got it,

Speaker 3

15:24

got it, uh

Speaker 2

15:25

got it approved for a subdivision.

15:27

So it it can be used for residential.

Speaker 4

15:31

Um

Speaker 2

15:32

it's just not you know, they're not proposing that now.

15:36

But I got some questions for you about the um layout.

15:39

I I know that parking in the rear is what uh um is what the overlay requires.

15:44

So how they're gonna get are they are the entry doors are on gonna be on the front?

Speaker 5

15:49

There will be um entry doors on the back and in the front, and what I discuss with the owner is they would both enter into a central area where the cashier is and so they so they could monitor both both entrances.

16:09

So your your drive up traffic will be from the rear and your walk-up traffic will be from the front.

Speaker 2

16:14

Okay, and you mentioned um loading and deliveries.

16:17

That's that's real concern to

Unassigned speaker

16:19

me.

Speaker 2

16:20

Um I was out there yesterday and I was on the uh um

Unassigned speaker

16:24

on

Speaker 2

16:24

the parkway side, each parkway side, and I measured the the road bed, it was right at 18 and a half feet or

Unassigned speaker

16:30

so.

Speaker 2

16:30

Um, and there was a truck that was unloading um for the construction of work on the park, and there was no way that any car could get past that truck.

16:42

And then on the other side, on the uh um border side, I measured about 23 feet.

16:47

And so uh um a truck is eight, six wide or trailers eight, six wide plus plus mirrors and such, and then with the turns internal in the neighborhood, um how is a truck supposed to unload and not have an impact on the neighborhood and

Speaker 5

17:01

traffic.

17:02

The um truck will be at the building rear, and that alley is a public alley, but there's no no one using it currently except the um well, we're not really using the alley, but our drive will be in the rear, and it's dedicated for this building only, so it will not impact uh traffic on either of the side roads.

Speaker 2

17:27

Uh does the business um would they get their deliveries are there full the full size 53 foot

Speaker 5

17:32

it's panel trucks, it's not tractal trailers.

Speaker 2

17:35

All right.

17:36

That's what excuse me.

17:38

That's what I want to know.

17:39

Let's see if I got anything else.

17:44

You mentioned the uh um

Unassigned speaker

17:46

a

Speaker 2

17:46

nice looking building.

17:48

These variances are site plan specific, site plan specific, and you didn't give any um any renderings or or any details of construction materials and such, and I'm assuming that if they did the staff

Unassigned speaker

18:03

if

Speaker 2

18:03

the applicant did um present some drawings with with some specifications on the building and aesthetics, elevations that that could be specific as well

Unassigned speaker

18:14

for

Speaker 2

18:14

the approval, not just site plan.

18:19

Yeah,

Unassigned speaker

18:21

I

Speaker 2

18:22

don't know, I'm just asking.

Speaker 6

18:23

I I know that the board has placed conditions on approvals before, uh similar to the bank downtown.

18:29

There was a condition placed on that special exception that it be a certain number of stories tall and that the exterior be brick.

18:36

Um the the Springhill overlay regulations do have several requirements as to the design of the structure, and the applicant has stated that they will comply with that regulations with those regulations.

18:47

Um so I'm not sure I would have to defer to legal as to any other conditions that could be placed on there.

Speaker 2

18:54

And I looked through the elevator overlay yesterday and I didn't see any of those specifics um on the design criteria.

Speaker 5

19:00

They they do have

Speaker 2

19:01

specifics.

19:01

What are those um,

Speaker 5

19:02

for instance, um the the ground floor, which we only have one floor, 12 to 18 18 feet height.

19:11

Right.

19:12

We um got a face hole shell.

19:16

50% of the facade must be windows.

19:21

Um door space no more than 50 feet apart.

19:26

Uh 25% minimum of the primary facade must uh provide uh cover for pedestrians.

Speaker 2

19:37

I've read all those.

19:37

I'm familiar with those.

19:38

So what um, although you can't be held to it, what type of materials uh would be the on the exterior of the building?

19:44

Um I would think that if I lived in a neighborhood, I'd want to

Unassigned speaker

19:48

know.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████49%
Signage Regulations███████████████16%
Community Engagement███████████12%
Parking Management██████7%
Procedural█████5%
Engineering And Infrastructure████4%
Transportation Safety██2%
Historic Preservation██2%
Building Safety█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Mobile Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting - October 1, 2026

The Mobile Board of Zoning Adjustment held a regular meeting on October 1, 2026, at 7:00 PM. The board considered multiple variance applications, including a high-profile request for a use variance to allow a 6,500-square-foot grocery store (Food Pack) on a residentially-zoned lot at 5070 Old Shell Road. Extensive public testimony was heard from neighborhood residents opposing the variance. After discussion, the applicant requested a 30-day holdover, which was granted. Other applications were approved or held over.

Public Comments & Testimony (Food Pack Application)

  • Kelly Myers (resident at 4270 Horloester Court, 250 feet from site) spoke in opposition. She described the neighborhood's history of fighting commercial development, noted that 87% of responses from within a 1,400-foot radius were in opposition (as stated in a prior Planning Commission meeting), and argued that the proposed use would increase noise, traffic, and light pollution, reduce privacy and property values, and create safety hazards for children using a nearby park. She submitted photos showing delivery trucks.
  • Kyle Ankerson (resident at 159 Border Drive West) opposed, stating there is no hardship because the lot could be used for residential (a residential contract existed). He argued the variance would adversely impact neighbors, citing Planning Commission findings of incompatibility. He noted the site plan uses a narrow alley and creates safety risks.
  • Linda St. John (President, Village of Spring Hill) opposed, stating no hardship, that residential development is viable, and that alternative commercial locations exist. She said the applicant knowingly purchased R1 zoned property. She argued the variance would undermine the master plan and set a precedent.
  • Thomas Myers (resident at 4270 Horloester Court) opposed, detailing that the request fails all three criteria for a variance (public interest, hardship, substantial justice). He noted the Planning Commission unanimously denied a rezoning and the proposed grocery store is over twice the size of the existing Food Pack.

Discussion Items (Food Pack)

The applicant's representative argued that the lot was historically labeled "commercial lot" and that the design meets all requirements except use. The owner is committed to a quality project. Board members asked questions about delivery trucks (panel trucks, not 18-wheelers), building materials (masonry/brick), and site plan specifics. The board noted that the applicant had submitted documentation for reduced parking and landscaping making some prior objections moot. The vice chair reminded that this is simply a use variance.

Key Outcomes

  • Food Pack Use Variance (Case 6669): The applicant requested and was granted a 30-day holdover. The matter will return to the Board of Zoning Adjustment on November 5, 2026, after the City Council reviews the related rezoning on November 3, 2026.
  • Variance for 852 Spring Hill Avenue (Case 6784): Approved unanimously, allowing reduced glazing on one elevation for a residential/office conversion.
  • Variance for 407 Hillcrest Road (Case 6785): Approved unanimously, allowing professional office use in a former residence, subject to conditions.
  • Variance for 2459 Third Avenue (Case 6786/6647): 30-day holdover granted to allow applicant to bring site into compliance with court-ordered conditions (screening, permits) and provide revised site plan for a shed.
  • Density Variance for 700 W I-65 Service Road (Case 6787/6692): Approved unanimously for 240 units (revised to 217), as previously granted but expired after six months.
  • Sign Variance for 2040 Schillinger Road (Case 6788): Approved unanimously, but without the electronic message board. Five wall signs and a freestanding sign allowed.
  • Variance for 251/255 St. Louis Street (Case 6789): Approved unanimously, allowing additional curb cuts and combined use, with condition to coordinate with St. Louis Street project manager.
  • Multiple Variances for 250 St. Francis Street (Home2 Suites) (Case 6790): Approved with conditions: allowed reduced transparency, two-foot awnings, and dumpster enclosure in right-of-way with wheeled dumpsters (curb cut width variance denied; enclosure materials to match hotel).
  • Driveway Variance for Newman Lane (Case 6792/6752): Approved unanimously for three modest houses.
  • Sign Amendment for Wawa (Case 6791): Approved unanimously, allowing Wawa to add copy to existing multi-tenant pylon sign.

Meeting Transcript

I think that the that the uh they would have tried to figure that out before they got it, uh the feasibility before they got it, got it, uh got it approved for a subdivision. So it it can be used for residential. Um it's just not you know, they're not proposing that now. But I got some questions for you about the um layout. I I know that parking in the rear is what uh um is what the overlay requires. So how they're gonna get are they are the entry doors are on gonna be on the front? There will be um entry doors on the back and in the front, and what I discuss with the owner is they would both enter into a central area where the cashier is and so they so they could monitor both both entrances. So your your drive up traffic will be from the rear and your walk-up traffic will be from the front. Okay, and you mentioned um loading and deliveries. That's that's real concern to me. Um I was out there yesterday and I was on the uh um on the parkway side, each parkway side, and I measured the the road bed, it was right at 18 and a half feet or so. Um, and there was a truck that was unloading um for the construction of work on the park, and there was no way that any car could get past that truck. And then on the other side, on the uh um border side, I measured about 23 feet. And so uh um a truck is eight, six wide or trailers eight, six wide plus plus mirrors and such, and then with the turns internal in the neighborhood, um how is a truck supposed to unload and not have an impact on the neighborhood and traffic. The um truck will be at the building rear, and that alley is a public alley, but there's no no one using it currently except the um well, we're not really using the alley, but our drive will be in the rear, and it's dedicated for this building only, so it will not impact uh traffic on either of the side roads. Uh does the business um would they get their deliveries are there full the full size 53 foot it's panel trucks, it's not tractal trailers. All right. That's what excuse me. That's what I want to know. Let's see if I got anything else. You mentioned the uh um a nice looking building. These variances are site plan specific, site plan specific, and you didn't give any um any renderings or or any details of construction materials and such, and I'm assuming that if they did the staff if the applicant did um present some drawings with with some specifications on the building and aesthetics, elevations that that could be specific as well for the approval, not just site plan. Yeah, I don't know, I'm just asking. I I know that the board has placed conditions on approvals before, uh similar to the bank downtown. There was a condition placed on that special exception that it be a certain number of stories tall and that the exterior be brick. Um the the Springhill overlay regulations do have several requirements as to the design of the structure, and the applicant has stated that they will comply with that regulations with those regulations. Um so I'm not sure I would have to defer to legal as to any other conditions that could be placed on there. And I looked through the elevator overlay yesterday and I didn't see any of those specifics um on the design criteria. They they do have specifics. What are those um, for instance, um the the ground floor, which we only have one floor, 12 to 18 18 feet height.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com