Fairhope board tables Culver’s ‘in‑car dining’ plan after parking, zoning concerns

The Fairhope Board of Adjustments on a unanimous voice vote tabled a request from Culver’s franchisees and their engineer to allow a set of dedicated “in‑car dining” parking spaces at a proposed restaurant site at the northwest corner of Highways 181 and 104.

Board members and staff said the concept — parking stalls used as an extension of the restaurant’s dining room where patrons order via smartphone and are served at their car — is not accounted for in the city’s zoning rules and raised questions about parking maximums, landscaping and drainage that the application had not resolved.

Mike Jeffries, a City of Fairhope planning staff member, told the board that the proposal is “a use not provided for” under the zoning ordinance and that staff’s recommendation was denial for the in‑car dining use. He said the city’s parking rules include both minimums and a 20% cap above the minimum, and staff had concerns the proposal was effectively seeking additional parking beyond the allowed maximum.

Representatives for the applicant, including David DeChera of Cadre Engineering and franchisee Matt Kuhn, said the in‑car dining stalls are an alternative point of sale intended to improve service in a site that would otherwise be short on parking. Kuhn said the restaurant’s main revenue stream is the drive‑through: “Drive through is our main revenue stream,” he said, adding that many customers now prefer pickup and curbside service. Owner/operator Curtis Herbig said Culver’s began with an in‑car dining model and that the feature is intended to be an additional service point, not a way to evade parking limits: “Culver’s originally started with just in car dining. That’s how Culver’s originated in 1984,” he said.

Board members probed how the stalls would be enforced, how employees would serve cars safely, and whether allowing the use for one site would set a precedent. Staff said a zoning amendment or a fully specified site plan would be a better route to create a city‑wide allowance; absent that, the board would need a very specific, fully engineered site plan to evaluate impacts such as landscape islands, drainage and wetland buffers.

At the applicant’s request, a board member moved to table the item without setting a return date so Culver’s and staff could revise the submission and address outstanding engineering and landscaping concerns. Another board member seconded, and the motion carried with the ayes recorded by roll call.

Next steps: the applicant will work with city staff on a more detailed site plan, including landscape, drainage and parking calculations. The item will return to the board when the applicant and staff agree more information is ready for review.