Big Eastside Development Plan Still Stalled

Fairhope, Alabama 

Update: This item was tabled until the December meeting to allow more time for negotiations with city planning staff.

 

Highway 181 site.

 

New Eastlake Village plan.

 

NOW CALLED 'EASTLAKE VILLAGE'

A proposal by owner '181 Fairhope Avenue 2023 Llc.' to rezone 75 acres at the northwest corner of Hwy 181 and Fairhope Avenue for a new Planned Unit Development has stalled, at an impasse according to planning director Simmons -- who is recommending the planning commission deny their request during Monday's meeting because it does not fully-meet technical standards for PUDs in the city's zoning ordinance.

The project proposal includes 610 dwelling units of various types(including a 130-room hotel)  and 207K square feet of commercial space (see at very bottom).

Even though city staff is recommending denial, developer 68 Ventures wants to continue the approval process to "see if the planning commission and city council agree with staff" which is always an option for any applicant -- according to documents provided to the public.

The new 'Eastlake Village' plan proposal replaces the older 'Klumpp PUD' plan that was approved in 2019, but construction never begun by the previous owner. (A 'Park City' PUD plan was informally reviewed about a year ago too.)

The planning commission may vote to agree or disagree with staff's opinion; but the final decision rests with the city council at an upcoming meeting.

SE Civil Engineering is representing the owner.

 

 

Development plan.


Plan details.


Comments

Anonymous said…
Hopefully it will be stalled permanently
Anonymous said…
Infrastructure to support the development? hahaha
Anonymous said…
Someone told me the 68 Ventures head grew up here in Fairhope. He must remember the good ‘ol’ days of farmland and two lane roads. Where did he go wrong?
Anonymous said…
When is the meeting ?
Anonymous said…
Trafic nighmare
Anonymous said…
How can you tell when a developer is lying? His lips are moving
Anonymous said…
That would be the city’s problem because the the council is owned by the developer
Anonymous said…
Meeting is TODAY the 7th at 5 pm. Be there. Speak up.
Anonymous said…
Looks like a good plan. People have the right to develop their property!
Comrade 1 said…
You anti personal property rights folk need to face the reality there is going to be a big shopping center there some day!
Anonymous said…
Looks like a quality development. Turn this one down and we may get something less desirable. If the city needs some changes to the current proposed plan, they can work with the developer for that prior to approval.
Anonymous said…
Developers that grew up in Fairhope, viewed the farms and rural charm- do you think they ever have any regrets?
Anonymous said…
Right but it is the farmers themselves or their children selling out to the developers! Take the $s and run!
Anonymous said…
Too much on to little
Anonymous said…
Indeed. These farmers and their children should not benefit from their investments. They should do with less so that we can enjoy pretty views as we pass at 45 m.p.h. It's almost as if they believe that they own their own land. How unAmerican! They remind me of the greedy farmers who sold the land to the greed developers who built the houses sold by the greedy realtors that we all live in, today.
Anonymous said…
Yep Walmart used to be the Klump farm too.
Anonymous said…
Bet 68 Ventures is chomping at the bit to file a lawsuit!
Anonymous said…
They already have one going.
Anonymous said…
I don’t believe anyone is denying farmers the right to sell their land. The forefathers that owned the farmland no doubt sold- to other farmers for farming. Did y’all know that about 85% of our avocados come from one county in Mexico?
Do we want to depend on foreign countries for our produce? If all the farmland were sold off, how would you have us get our produce?
Anonymous said…
That's not a farmer/landowner/developer/Realtor problem; it's a union/government (i.e. minimum wage, overregulation, etc.) problem. If farming were profitable, you'd see more of it.
Skipper said…
I feel there always needs to be give and take. We all know a developer wants to maximize returns for investors. They use the cash flow a project is projected to make and IRR to entice an investor to participate. That’s why a project is loaded up with buildings. With that being said I think the project is basically a good one but I’m not particularly a fan of PUDS as parking and sometimes congestion is a problem. So if the project is reduced a bit for the same footprint and infrastructure or a decent impact fee is charged the developer I personally am for it. I would rather we be stuck in time and no more large development but as we know that can’t happen.
I hope the people doing the review and approvals are not biased and think about all the good and bad.
Love Fairhope- best to all