Illustration by Sarah Owens
Homewood's Committees met on Monday to discuss a variety of items, most notably those related to the proposed Samford development during Planning and Development. The City Council also confirmed public hearings for those items during their meeting.
The Planning and Development Committee had four items on the meeting agenda related to the project:
- Case # RZ 25-03-02: 1601 Parkview Lane and 600 & 601 University Park Place, Parcel ID: 28-00-19-2-001-003.003, 28-00-19-2-001-003.004, 29-00-24-1-007-004.000, Applicant: Landmark Development Services, LLC, Owner: Samford University & University Park Holdings, LLC Purpose: A request to rezone the subject properties, comprising Samford University’s proposed Creekside District — West, from PMUD, Planned Mixed Use District to an MXD, Mixed Use District zoning classification to facilitate the development of a new mixed-use and pedestrian-oriented community. (9-0 positive recommendation from the Planning Commission)
- Case # FD 25-03-03: 1601 Parkview Lane and 600 & 601 University Park Place, Parcel ID: 28-00-19-2-001-003.003, 28-00-19-2-001-003.004, 29-00-24-004.000, Applicant: Landmark Development Services, LLC, Owner: Samford University & University Parks Holdings, LLC Purpose: A request for approval of a Final Development Plan for the proposed Creekside District — West to include a diverse mix of commercial, retail, dining and entertainment uses, hospitality and conferencing facilities, some residential housing that would be limited to Samford University affiliated users, as well as surface and structured parking, landscaping, and other site improvements. (6-3 positive recommendation from the Planning Commission)
- Case # RZ 25-03-04: 1891, 1919, & 1921 South Lakeshore Drive and 1100 University Park Place, Parcel ID: 28-00-18-4-000-002.000, 28-00-18-3-001-009.001, 28-00-19-2-001-003.001, 28-00-19-2-001-003.002 Applicant: Landmark Development Services, LLC, Owner: Samford University Purpose: A request to rezone the subject properties, comprising Samford University’s proposed Creekside District — East, from PMUD, Planned Mixed Use District to an I-3, Institutional District zoning classification to facilitate the construction of new athletic fields and supporting infrastructure and open spaces for the shared use of Samford University and Homewood High School.(7-2 with a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission)
- Case # FD 25-03-05: 1891, 1919, & 1921 South Lakeshore Drive and 1100 University Park Place, Parcel ID: 28-00-18-4-000-002.000, 28-00-18-3-001-009.001, 28-00-19-2-001-003.001, 28-00-19-2-001-003.002 Applicant: Landmark Development Services, LLC, Owner: Samford University Purpose: A request for approval of a Final Development Plan for the proposed Creekside District — East to include a mixture of recreational facilities including: a regulation size track and field stadium, a regulation soccer field, intramural / community recreation fields / courts, baseball diamond (existing), as well as surface parking to support the development. (5-4 positive recommendation from the Planning Commission)
The Committee heard from Landmark Development President Bob Dunn, representing the project developers, as well as from community members opposing the project.
Dunn reiterated that Samford University and developers are looking to execute this development in a way that benefits both the University's need for growth and the Homewood community simultaneously, touching on four key points in his presentation.
Those points focused on concerns that have been brought up about the development: the impact to Shades Creek and the salamander habitat (located in the Creekside East section), community facilities surrounding soccer and track, the height of the proposed hotel and the opinion that the development is "too big" for the city.
"I'm not in any way suggesting it's not a big project, but we don't feel it's out of scale with the nature and type of development that's occurring on campus, or the type of development that's occurred along the whole Lakeshore drive corridor," said Dunn. "Then that translates into the fiscal impacts. I mean, one of the things that, to us, really has stood out with this project is it does drive a significant fiscal impact to the city and the school district. To us, that's one of kind of the four key pillars of the project, in terms of how it can really support quality of life in Homewood."
In his presentation, Dunn noted that if approved, the Creekside West project would likely be constructed in phases over the next 7 to 10 years. He also clarified that the soccer and track stadium originally planned for Creekside East is no longer set to be built on that space, but that their suggestion of a partnership with the city to build the facility on city land used by the Homewood Soccer Club was not a formal development proposal, merely an idea. Both the city and Dunn then clarified at the end of the meeting that that idea does not have a viable path forward and developers are exploring other options for placement of those facilities that do not involve city property.
Lant Davis, a resident of the Brookdale community that sits adjacent to the proposed development sites, also spoke at the meeting representing a petition opposing the development, which his neighborhood's Home Owners Association signed.
"What we would like is for Homewood, for our government, our elected representatives, to stop this. Stop it," Davis said. "If you don't stop it, then you need to address the sequence. Because the way it has come up, you're being asked to approve the development plan, which has all these buildings that you saw on there, all the things that Samford and Landmark want. But the development plan doesn't include any of the protective, ameliorative investments that will be necessary to lessen the damage that all of these buildings are going to do."
John Manzelli, a Homewood resident who lives directly across from the proposed development site, also spoke at the meeting, pointing to a petition that he created that has amassed 482 signatures as of Monday night.
Manzelli brought up four key questions.
- Is there public support and trust for the project?
- Is the project really viable?
- Do the benefits outweigh the harm?
- Does Homewood really need this?
"Homewood does not need this project in the middle of its town. Samford needs the project, and I understand. Homewood does not need this project," Manzelli said. "The only reason to do this is financial benefit. That's it. But I question how much the financial benefit is going to be to the city, and whether we're going to offset the money we bring in from this by the money we're taking away from other commercial venues in our town."
The developers submitted a financial incentive request to the city during a May 5 Finance Committee meeting, and Dunn was able to provide clarity on specific numbers in Monday night's finance meeting. Mayor Alex Wyatt noted that the request, if granted, would see the city share tax revenue from the development, giving Samford and Landmark 100% of the ad valorem lodging and sales tax from the property, except for what goes to schools, for 20 years with a cap of $26 million.
Councilor Nick Sims later asked if the project would still be viable without the incentive, to which Dunn responded, "Don't believe so."
Councilor Andrew Wolverton went on the say that while developers have pointed to community engagement efforts and the creation of a development advisory group as signs of community approval, he has not heard from a single community member in support of the project, and he urged developers to encourage those in support to speak out and share their thoughts with the council.
As the Planning and Development Committee meeting drew to a close, the committee voted to send the items to council with no recommendation, pending the public hearings set for June 9 at 6 p.m at City Hall.
Councilor Jennifer Andress emphasized multiple times throughout the meeting that all who wish to comment on the topic are welcome to come out for the public hearings, although Council President Walter Jones noted that, in an effort to be time efficient, it is appreciated when one representative can speak on the behalf of a large group.
Watch the Planning and Development meeting, starting at one hour and 45 minutes in, below:
Watch the full council meeting, where councilors confirmed the public hearings set for June 9, below:
